delete_relation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds non-inferable behavioral details: the relation is deleted in either direction, and the relation type name is required to disambiguate when multiple relations exist.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and a conditional usage note immediately following. Every word adds value.

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?

Covers the main operation, parameter purpose, and an important edge case (multiple relations). It does not discuss error behavior or idempotency, but given the simple schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by indicating that id and to refer to two cards and that relation is a type name used to pick among multiple relations. The numeric format of id/to is already covered by the schema.

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?

States the specific verb 'Delete' and the resource 'relation between two cards', clarifying the directional scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like delete_card or delete_entity.

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?

Provides practical guidance for the optional relation parameter (pass the type name if multiple relations exist), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as delete_card or write_relate.

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