Delete Relations

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints, but the description adds the valuable behavioral detail that the operation is 'Silent if a relation does not exist', which clarifies the idempotent nature and avoids unexpected errors. It also clarifies the scope (knowledge graph) and specificity of deletion. No contradiction with annotations, and it enriches the annotation data with contextual behavior.

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 only two sentences, immediately stating the purpose in the first sentence and adding a key behavioral nuance in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it highly scannable.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers essential aspects: what it deletes, the silent behavior for missing relations, and the knowledge graph context. It doesn't mention namespace defaulting, but that's in the schema. It lacks an explicit note on when to use this vs. sibling delete tools, but the description is otherwise complete for a delete operation with good schema/annotation support.

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 schema provides rich descriptions for the namespace and the subfields of relations, but the top-level relations parameter lacks a direct description. The tool description adds minimal parameter insight beyond naming 'specific relations'. Overall, the schema carries most weight, and the description doesn't significantly compensate for the 50% coverage gap, though the subfields are well-documented.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'specific relations from the knowledge graph', which precisely identifies the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_entities and delete_observations by explicitly targeting relations. The mention of 'specific' relations adds clarity that it deletes user-selected edges, not all relations.

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 implies usage for deleting particular relations by saying 'specific relations', and the tool name reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., delete_entities, delete_observations) or provide exclusions. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit, so it falls short of a clear context for selection.

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