delete_relation

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 does not state whether deletion is irreversible, whether it cascades to other entities, requires authentication/permissions, or what happens on the associated entries. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 efficient sentence in Japanese that conveys purpose clearly. There is zero waste. However, it is arguably under-specified rather than concise, but for a single-parameter CRUD delete tool, this length is appropriate.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. Given the ambiguity with the sibling 'delete_relationship' and the lack of behavioral disclosure (reversibility, dependencies, what gets deleted), the description is not sufficiently complete for an agent to confidently invoke it, especially to decide between delete_relation and delete_relationship.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the single 'id' parameter with description '関連ID'. The description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema. With 100% coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't provide anything extra (e.g., ID format, source of the ID), so 3 is appropriate.

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 'エントリ間の関連を削除' (delete relations between entries) states a clear verb+resource: it deletes a relation. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'delete_relationship' which appears semantically identical, nor does it clarify the relation to 'create_relation' and 'get_relations' beyond the obvious CRUD pattern.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, there is a sibling 'delete_relationship' that seems functionally identical, and no explanation of when to use relation deletion versus tag/entry deletion. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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