delete_edge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so comprehensively. It explicitly states the operation 'cannot be undone,' clarifies that 'deleting edges won't affect related nodes,' explains the need to call get_node_details again to view updated relationships, and describes the return data format including specific fields like id and deletedAt.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Use cases, Usage recommendations, Important notes, Return data) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise, such as the detailed 4-step usage recommendations that partially repeat schema information. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a destructive operation.

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 and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers irreversible nature, safety measures (confirmDelete), prerequisites (list_graphs, get_node_details), effects on the system, return data format, and specific use cases. This fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, though it does reinforce the confirmDelete safety measure in the usage recommendations. The schema already documents that graphId must come from list_graphs and edgeId from get_node_details relationships.

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 specific action ('Delete edges') and resource ('from the knowledge graph'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_node, delete_resource, and update_edge. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, specifying it 'must be used in conjunction with list_graphs and get_node_details tools' and listing three specific use cases. It also includes detailed usage recommendations with a 4-step process, making it clear how this tool fits into the workflow compared to other graph manipulation tools.

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