Delete Relationship Class

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the destructive-switch requirement and that the confirmation path must match exactly, which tells the agent the call will be rejected on mismatch.

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?

A single dense sentence with no waste, front-loading the scope constraint before the confirmation requirement. Terse but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the destructive profile. Still missing for a mutation tool: path syntax expectations and the consequence of a mismatch. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It usefully explains the semantics of confirm_relationship_class_path (must be identical to the target path), but relationship_class_path itself gets no format/syntax detail. Partial compensation justifies the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (delete relationship class) and adds a scope qualifier ('within GP output root') that separates it from sibling create_relationship_class / relationship_classes. It does not explicitly name the sibling to use instead, but the action and target are unambiguous.

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?

Implies the precondition that the class must live inside the GP output root and that a destructive switch is required, which narrows when it applies. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. use relationship_classes to inspect first) or states when-not to use it, leaving routing to inference.

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