Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that entities are not touched, clarifying the scope of destruction. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the scope clarification follows immediately. It is appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation, the description covers the action and its scope, and annotations handle the safety profile. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when to choose this over other relation tools) and any mention of error conditions or irreversibility, leaving gaps for an agent to call it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (from_entity_id, to_entity_id, workspace_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format details, which is the baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Borra') and resource ('la relación entre dos entidades del Atlas'), and distinguishes itself from delete_entity by noting that entities are not touched ('Las entidades no se tocan'). This allows an agent to differentiate it from sibling tools that add or change relations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools like get_entity_relations or add_entity_relation. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.