mmar_delete_relationclass_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It only states the deletion and gives no information about cascading effects on associated data (e.g., attributes, roles, bendpoints), permission requirements, or idempotency. This is a notable gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and object, with no extraneous wording. It is concise and well-structured, clearly stating the action and scope.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource and the parameter. However, it omits any mention of side effects on related entities (e.g., role instances, attribute instances, bendpoints) which are relevant for a relationclass instance. This gap prevents it from being fully 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?

The input schema already provides a full description for the uuid parameter, including format and meaning. The description adds no new information beyond what the schema already states, so this meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource type ('relationclass instance'), and adds a clarifying parenthetical ('connection/edge') that distinguishes it from other instance or class deletion tools. It also states the identifier key ('by its UUID'), 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 clear context for when to use this tool: when deleting a specific relationclass instance by UUID. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the 'connection/edge' wording and the tool's name imply it is distinct from deleting class instances or relation classes, which is sufficient for simple usage guidance.

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