delete-crm-object-schemas-v3-schemas-objtype-associations-va_var

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It simply states the action 'Remove an association' without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, authorization requirements, or impact on related data. This gives the agent no additional behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 extremely short (one phrase) and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical context such as the resource scope (schema associations) and how the params relate to the operation, making it closer to a placeholder than a helpful summary.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description that does not explain what objectType and associationIdentifier refer to, whether this is a destructive permanent action, or how it differs from other association-deletion endpoints. Given the complexity of the CRM domain and the number of sibling tools, this is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. However, the parameter descriptions are trivial ('Path parameter objectType', 'Path parameter associationIdentifier') and add no semantic meaning beyond the property names. The tool description also does not clarify acceptable values or purpose of these parameters, so it does not elevate above the baseline.

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 'Remove an association' is essentially a rephrasing of the tool's name (delete-crm-object-schemas...associations). It lacks scope: it does not specify that this removes an association definition from an object schema, nor does it distinguish from several sibling tools that also remove associations (e.g., delete-crm-v3-objects-objtype-objid-associations-var-var-var_var).

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools that perform similar operations (e.g., batch archive, record-level association removal). The user is left to infer the purpose from the name alone.

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