delete_relations

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: deletion is logical rather than physical, records are retained in history, and the store is shared with v2 tooling. That materially changes how an agent should reason about reversibility and auditability, which annotations (destructiveHint=true) alone would obscure. It still omits failure behavior and whether the batch is atomic.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the migration warning is placed early so an agent reads it before deciding to call. The opening clause about the SQLite backend is slightly less useful than a statement of what the tool does, but overall it is tight.

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, non-idempotent batch mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is under-specified: no statement of the operation itself, no all-or-nothing semantics, no mention of how partial or missing relations are handled, and no indication of what the call returns.

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%, and the single `relations` parameter is a nested array of {from, to, relationType} triples capped at 100 items. The description says nothing about this structure, the batch limit, what happens to triples that don't exist, or whether the whole array is applied atomically.

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 never states the actual operation; the agent has to infer 'deletes relations' from the tool name plus the phrase 'legacy deletion.' It frames the tool as a compatibility shim rather than describing the verb+resource, and it does not distinguish it from siblings like forget_memory or delete_entities.

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?

There is a genuine routing hint — 'new callers should prefer versioned native memory tools' — which tells the agent this is a fallback. However, it never names which sibling to prefer, nor states the condition under which this tool remains the right choice (legacy callers, existing relation triples).

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