delete_related_items

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 discloses that the operation deletes relationships and returns a JSON confirmation, but it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades, whether missing IDs are ignored, or whether special permissions are required.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the Args block largely duplicates what the input schema already exposes. It is not bloated, yet the parameter listing adds limited value beyond the schema itself.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description omits important context: valid source types, relationship types, deletion semantics, and failure behavior. The stated return type helps, but the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in varied contexts.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It only restates the parameter names with shallow labels like 'The type of the source resource' and 'List of related item IDs to delete.' It does not explain valid source_type values, the nature of the relationships, or edge-case behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete relationships between resources.' It clearly identifies the action and general object, and the parameter names reinforce what is being deleted. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like update_related_item, but the delete semantics are clear enough.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_related_items, create_related_item, or update_related_item. The intended use is only implied by 'Delete relationships,' and there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing instructions.

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