disassociate_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the conditional use of relatedRecordId, which is useful, but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, whether it fails if the relationship does not exist, or any permissions/error behavior. It also does not mention that the records themselves are not deleted, which is an important behavioral distinction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only essential conditional details. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return values and error conditions. It does not mention what the response looks like or what happens if the relationship is not found. The core usage is covered, but missing response/error context makes it only partially complete.

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 100% with descriptions for all four parameters, so the schema already provides baseline clarity. The description adds valuable semantics by explaining the role of relatedRecordId is conditional based on navigation property type, which goes beyond the schema's static description. This clarifies exactly when the parameter is required or must be omitted.

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: 'Remove a relationship link between two Dataverse records.' This specifies the verb (remove), the resource (relationship link between records), and distinguishes from deleting records or adding relationships. It also differentiates the behavior for collection vs. single-valued navigation, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides explicit instructions on when to include or omit relatedRecordId based on navigation property type ('For collection navigation properties... For single-valued... omit'). This is strong usage guidance for how to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool vs. delete_record, but the context of removing a link (not a record) is implied.

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