delete_relation

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. It clearly labels the operation as DESTRUCTIVE, states that it cannot be undone, and scopes exactly what is deleted (the relation, not the entities). This is strong transparency for a destructive tool, though it does not mention permission requirements or potential side effects.

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 two sentences with no filler. The 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning is front-loaded, followed by the precise scope of the operation and the irreversibility note. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 is simple, the schema fully documents its two required parameters, and an output schema exists. The description provides the critical behavioral warnings and scope clarification, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, source_entity and target_entity, with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general notion of a relationship between two entities, 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'permanently deletes the relationship between two entities from the knowledge graph.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_entity by clarifying that 'entities themselves are not deleted,' which prevents confusion with a key sibling tool.

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 makes the intended use clear: removing a relationship while preserving the entities. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_relation or edit_relation, but the 'entities themselves are not deleted' clause provides useful context for deciding between this and delete_entity.

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