graph.relation.delete

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not reveal behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling (e.g., removing a non-existent relation), side effects, or authorization requirements. The sparse description fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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 short sentence – concise but lacking substance. It could be expanded to include critical details without being verbose.

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?

Given the complexity (5 required parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return values, or operational context, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the five required parameters. While parameter names (e.g., source_id, relation_type) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify expected values, format, or constraints.

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 relation') and the resource ('between two nodes of the graph catalog'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like graph.relation.create, though it could further clarify the scope of 'graph catalog'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., graph.relation.create or other mutation tools). There are no hints about preconditions, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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