delete_template_relationship

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: it edits DataModelSchema JSON on disk, writes back in place with a .bak guard, and fails if the relationship does not exist. This gives the agent a clear safety and failure profile.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action, then provides failure and persistence details, earning its place entirely.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the schema's full parameter coverage, the description is complete. It covers the operation, failure mode, and side effects (file write with backup), which is more than sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter context beyond 'from/to' mapping to the fromTable/fromColumn and toTable/toColumn fields, but does not add extra syntax or format details.

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 tool deletes a relationship from a closed .pbit template's model, specifying exact endpoint matching (from/to) and the file-based context. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_relationship by emphasizing 'closed .pbit template' and editing DataModelSchema JSON on disk.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when working with a closed .pbit template and no Power BI Desktop. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the context implies it is for offline/template scenarios versus other relationship tools.

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