users_visible_apps_delete_to_many_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that the operation is a DELETE (implying mutation), but says nothing about what is destroyed, whether the operation is idempotent, what authorization is required, or what the response looks like. The duplicated endpoint string adds no behavioral context.

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 endpoint string is repeated verbatim in parentheses, wasting the opening clause, and the body-shape sentence duplicates the input schema's description almost word for word. The result is short but not information-dense; no sentence earns its place beyond the raw path.

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 mutating relationship-delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what happens on success, what the body must contain, and any auth/permission requirements. Instead it defers entirely to an external OpenAPI schema the agent may not have access to, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently.

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 100%: the 'id' path parameter and 'body' object are both documented in the schema. The description's only parameter-related content is a pointer to components.schemas.UserVisibleAppsLinkagesRequest, which nearly restates the schema's own body description. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work and the description adds no syntax or format detail.

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 names a specific HTTP verb and resource path (DELETE /v1/users/{id}/relationships/visibleApps), which lets an agent infer it removes entries from a user's visible-apps relationship. However, it never states the purpose in plain language ('remove apps from a user's visible apps'), so the agent must decode REST semantics. Sibling tools like users_visible_apps_create/replace are distinguishable only by the verb in the path, not by any explanatory text.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools (users_visible_apps_create_to_many_relationship, users_visible_apps_replace_to_many_relationship, users_visible_apps_get_to_many_related). The agent is left to infer that DELETE vs create vs replace are the alternatives. Nothing routes the agent between these near-identical siblings.

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