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 and does so thoroughly. It discloses destructive and immediate nature, permanent removal, cascading effects on consumer coverage/posture, non-effect on model's own controls, and the return payload. This goes well beyond a basic 'delete' statement.

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 dense sentences front-load the destructive nature and each sentence adds essential context: what is deleted, consequences, prerequisite step, and lack of alternative. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter delete tool, the description covers prerequisites, effects, return format, and alternatives. Even with an output schema present, it adds valuable behavioral context and makes the tool safely invocable.

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 50%: edge_id is described in the schema and reinforced in the tool description, but server_version is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning for server_version, leaving a significant gap for a required parameter.

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 identifies the specific verb+resource: deleting a cross-model reliance/delegation edge. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_reliance, create_reliance, and confirm_reliance by specifying removal semantics, and from other delete/remove tools by naming the exact resource type.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use list_reliance first to find edge_id, and states there is no toggle alternative—deletion is the only removal path. This gives clear when-to-use and sequencing guidance relative to related tools.

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