delete_relationship

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds that pyArchimate removes visual connections, which is helpful. It also documents the error case. It does not mention other behavioral details like irreversibility or permission requirements, but overall adds value beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: main action, side effect, parameters, returns, errors. Every sentence is relevant and earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description covers input, side effect, output, and error. Minor gap: does not clarify what 'active model' means, but context likely known. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args section explaining the parameter as 'ID of the relationship to delete,' which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. Could be more detailed about the format or source of IDs.

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 it deletes an ArchiMate relationship from the active model, specifying the resource and action. It also mentions the side effect of removing visual connections, distinguishing it from update or other delete operations.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_relationship or delete_element. Usage is implied but not guided with exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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