delete_association

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the precondition that the association must have zero concrete relations, and clarifies the no-op behavior for missing associations. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the failure mode and success condition.

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 long, contains no extraneous information, and is front-loaded with the key behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (one parameter, clear annotations, output schema present), the description is complete. It explains the precondition, the no-op behavior, and the alternative tool when needed. The output schema covers return values, so no further description is needed.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'association' with 100% description coverage, stating it is a string that will be trimmed. The description does not add additional meaning or context about the parameter, such as how to obtain its value or its format. Thus it meets the baseline of 3.

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 one Huly association definition) and the condition (only when no concrete relations reference it). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'delete_relation' by specifying that delete_relation must be used first if relations exist. The verb 'delete' and resource 'association definition' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: only when no concrete relations reference the association. It also states when not to use it: if relations exist, delete_relation must clean them up first. It mentions that deleting an already-missing association is a successful no-op, providing clear usage boundaries.

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