parse_remove_relation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior ('removes objects') and lists required inputs, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or reversibility. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and easy to parse, though the omission of targetClassName slightly detracts from its utility.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention targetClassName, return values, error conditions, or any prerequisites. The description is too sparse for an operation that modifies data.

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 description lists most parameters (className, objectId, relationField, objectIds) but omits targetClassName, which is a required parameter in the schema. The nested schema has descriptions, but the description does not fully compensate for the low top-level coverage and misses a required field.

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 ('Remueve...') and the specific resource ('campo de tipo Relation en Parse Server'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_remove_from_array and parse_add_relation. The verb and resource 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 provides clear context that this tool is for Relation fields, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention parse_remove_from_array, but the Relation-field specification gives strong usage guidance.

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