delete_relations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool deletes relations but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether deletions are permanent, require specific permissions, have side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or include confirmation steps. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 in Korean ('특정 관계를 삭제합니다'), which translates to 'Deletes specific relations'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely and effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'relations' represents, the structure of the array items, or the meaning of 'from', 'to', and 'relationType' fields. The description fails to provide semantic context beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 states the action ('삭제합니다' - deletes) and target ('특정 관계' - specific relations), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'relations' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_entities' or 'delete_observations'. The purpose is clear but vague.

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 like 'delete_entities' or 'delete_observations'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection. Usage is implied only by the tool name and basic action.

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