delete_edge

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

The description adds no behavioral disclosure beyond the action itself. While destructiveHint: true is annotated, the description provides no additional context about side effects, reversibility, or what exactly gets destroyed. It contributes nothing beyond what the annotation already states.

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 single sentence is brief, but brevity without substance is under-specification, not conciseness. The sentence does not earn its place because it adds no information beyond the tool name. It lacks the structure needed to convey essential details.

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 tool with 4 parameters (3 required) and no schema descriptions, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of inputs, the expected output, or any usage context. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool with the given information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining the four parameters. It fails entirely, offering no explanation of what 'source', 'target', 'relation', or 'key' mean or how they are used in deletion. An agent has no way to understand the inputs.

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 '엣지를 삭제한다' translates directly to 'delete the edge', which is a tautological restatement of the tool name. It provides no additional context about what an edge is or how this operation differs from delete_node. The purpose is clear at a basic level but adds no distinguishing detail.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_node or update_edge. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

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