Delete cmdb relation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that missing identifiers raise a MissingParameterError, but it does not say what happens to the CI's other relations, whether the deletion cascades, or what the response actually contains.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the Sphinx-style :param/:type/:rtype/:raises block restates types already present in the schema, adding bulk with limited informational gain.

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?

There is no output schema, so the ':return: Response containing the operation result' note is appropriately included, and the three core parameters are covered. However, with 12 parameters and no annotation-level detail about side effects, the definition leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding how to call it safely.

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, and it does document the three semantically important parameters (className, sys_id, rel_sys_id) with their meanings and types. The remaining nine schema properties (data, source, attributes, sysparm_limit, sysparm_query, api_parameters, sysparm_offset, inbound_relations, outbound_relations) are left entirely unexplained, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Deletes the relation') and scopes it to the specified configuration item, which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (create_cmdb_relation, get_cmdb), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the docstring's note that className, sys_id, and rel_sys_id must be supplied or a MissingParameterError is raised, which serves as a prerequisite hint. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_cmdb_relation or other CMDB tools.

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