Delete Relationship

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate the destructive nature. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: it removes only the relationship, not the underlying memories. It does not disclose idempotency, permanence beyond the annotation, or error behavior, but the annotation lowers the bar.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, and every word earns its place without repeating schema or annotation content.

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 simple 3-parameter destructive tool, the schema plus annotations plus description are nearly sufficient: all inputs are documented, validation is clear, and the destructive hint is present. Missing sibling-routing and usage guidance slightly reduce completeness, but these are partially accounted for under usage guidelines.

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%, with all three parameters (from_hash, to_hash, relation_type) documented including patterns and descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Remove', and clearly identifies the resource: a relationship between two memories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_memory and create_relationship without ambiguity.

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 such as get_relationships or delete_memory, and no conditions, preconditions, or exclusions are provided. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and annotations.

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