delete_relationship

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states that the tool deletes a relationship but does not mention irreversibility, side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to dependent data. This is a significant transparency 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, clear sentence followed by a compact list of parameters with translations. Every element serves a purpose, with no fluff or repetition. The structure is front-loaded with the action and then provides essential argument details.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits behavioral context such as side effects, reversibility, and the role of branch_name beyond a generic 'schema branch'. It is adequate for a straightforward delete operation but lacks depth for a branching-aware destructive action.

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 description includes a brief explanation for each parameter (schema_uuid, relationship_uuid, branch_name), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema that has no parameter descriptions. Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by identifying the role of each argument.

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 uses the imperative 'Удалить' (delete) with a specific resource 'связь между таблицами' (relationship between tables), making it unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_relationship and edit_relationship, as well as delete_table and delete_schema.

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, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description is a bare command with parameter names, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and general CRUD context.

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