delete_workitem_relation_record

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags that the operation is destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the deletion is scoped to the relation only and does not delete the work items themselves. This helps an agent understand the precise blast radius without contradicting the annotation.

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?

A single, clear sentence that front-loads the core action and adds the most important safety nuance ('without deleting either work item'). Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 straightforward delete-relation operation with fully documented parameters and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It could add detail about irreversibility or response behavior, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all five parameters, including the relationType enum. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('relation between two work items'), and explicitly clarifies it does not delete either work item, which distinguishes it from delete_work_item and delete_workitem_testcase_relation. The domain prefix also aids scoping.

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 clearly implies when to use it — when removing a relation between two work items — but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as create_workitem_relation_record or delete_workitem_testcase_relation. Usage context is present but relies on inference from the sibling tool names.

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