SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that deletion occurs and removal is recorded in project history, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details like permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, side effects on related entities, or error handling, leaving significant gaps 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a relationship by id') and adds secondary context ('record the removal in project history') without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't cover permissions, reversibility, or side effects. However, the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, and it does mention project history recording, providing some context for a basic delete operation.

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 adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It implies 'relationship_id' identifies the relationship to delete, but doesn't clarify format, constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, this doesn't fully compensate, but provides basic context for the single 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 states the action ('Delete a relationship by id') and specifies the resource ('relationship'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_entity' or 'list_relationships', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_entity' or 'list_relationships'. It mentions recording removal in project history, which hints at context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternatives.

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