Delete Reliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses that the operation is destructive, immediate, and permanently removes the edge; explains downstream effects on consumer coverage/posture; clarifies that either model's own controls are unaffected; and states the return value. This is exemplary transparency for a mutating tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and destructive nature, then expands into side effects, return value, and usage guidance. Each paragraph serves a distinct purpose with no filler or repetition, and the formatting makes the critical warnings immediately visible.

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, the description thoroughly covers behavior, side effects, return value, and how to obtain the required edge_id. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented server_version parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 only 50%; server_version is a required parameter but has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description. The description does add useful context for edge_id by saying to find it via list_reliance, but it leaves server_version completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Delete a cross-model reliance / delegation edge.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from related sibling operations like create_reliance, confirm_reliance, and list_reliance by focusing on removal and stating destructive permanence.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use list_reliance to find edge_id first, and states that there is no toggle to pause an edge—deletion is the only removal path. This provides clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance, plus an explicit exclusion for a potential alternative action.

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