knowledge_relation_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a meaningful guarantee—exactly one edge is removed and nodes are never deleted—but it does not mention irreversibility, error behavior for invalid IDs, idempotency, or successful response details.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the action and target come first, and the safety qualifier follows immediately. Every word contributes to understanding the operation and its limits.

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 simple tool with one required parameter, the description covers the core operation and a key safety property. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves the agent uninformed about expected return values and failure modes, making it merely adequate rather than complete.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already described. The description confirms relation_id as the edge identifier that drives the removal, adding modest meaning beyond the schema, consistent with the high-coverage baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a precise target ('exactly one explicit edge by relation ID'), clearly identifying the resource and operation. The added clause 'Nodes are never deleted' reinforces the scope and distinguishes it from node-level removal tools.

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 intended use is implied: remove a relation when you know its ID. The 'Nodes are never deleted' statement gives a when-not hint, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for choosing this over siblings like knowledge_relation_update or knowledge_update.

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