crm_delete_association

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the deletion is reversible, or what happens if the association doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is minimal.

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 with 4 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an 'association' means in this CRM context, what happens after deletion, error conditions, or any behavioral nuances. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'fromObjectType', 'toObjectType', 'fromObjectId', or 'toObjectId' mean or how they should be used. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter semantics despite the critical nature of these identifiers for the deletion operation.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('association between two objects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_batch_delete_associations' or 'crm_delete_object', which would require specifying this is for single associations rather than batches or objects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_batch_delete_associations' for multiple deletions or 'crm_delete_object' for removing objects themselves. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases for association deletion.

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