delete_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a relationship is deleted and how to identify it, but it does not mention permanence, error behavior (e.g., if the relationship doesn't exist), or any side effects. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by necessary identification criteria. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the two identification modes but leaves ambiguities: it does not clarify what happens if both name and the four columns are provided, or if neither is provided. It also omits expected return values or error behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, it is moderately complete but has clear gaps.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that identification can be done either by name OR by all four column parameters, and that the quartet is order-insensitive. This clarifies parameter usage in a way the schema does not.

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 the action ('Delete a relationship') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from related sibling tools like add_relationship, update_relationship, and delete_template_relationship by focusing on deletion and providing identification methods.

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 implies usage: use this tool to delete a relationship. It provides two identification methods but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., delete_template_relationship for template relationships) or any prerequisites/exclusions. This is minimal but acceptable guidance, so it earns a 3 rather than a 2 or 4.

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