delete_relationship

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. 'Delete' implies destructive behavior, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related entities, whether confirmation is involved, or whether there are any side effects. For a destructive tool 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 compact sentence in Japanese that conveys the core purpose without waste. However, it is under-specified for a destructive operation - being brief is good, but the brevity sacrifices needed behavioral context.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, this description should compensate with richer context. A destructive relationship deletion tool needs to clarify whether this affects related entries, tags, or other relationships. The minimal single-sentence description leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'エントリID (UUID)' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about what type of relationship ID this expects or any ID format requirements beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter.

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 '人間関係を削除' (Delete human relationship) clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (relationship), which is adequate. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like delete_relation or delete_custom_entry, nor clarify what '人間関係' specifically refers to versus create_relationship/update_relationship siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many similar delete tools (delete_relation, delete_persona, delete_custom_entry) and no exclusion or distinction is provided. The description does not state any prerequisites (e.g., relationship must exist) or context for appropriate use.

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