Relation Delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses a genuinely useful side effect: removing a supersedes relation does not reactivate the target, requiring a follow-up item_save. It still omits permissions/authorization requirements and whether the deletion is reversible.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly sectioned into Use quando / Retorna / Exemplo / Notas. Every line adds signal, and the example makes invocation concrete with no wasted prose.

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 two-parameter delete tool with an output schema already covering the return value, the description covers purpose, trigger, provenance, and the supersedes caveat. The remaining gap is the undocumented connection_id parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the provenance of relation_id and gives a usage example, but the optional connection_id parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (remove) and resource (a relation between items), and adds where the identifier comes from ('o id vem em item_get → relations'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like item_delete and structure_delete, which operate on different resources.

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 'Use quando' section gives an explicit trigger ('Uma relação foi criada por engano'). However, it offers no exclusions or named alternatives for other cleanup scenarios, and the interaction with item_save is only hinted at in the notes.

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