delete_relation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so irreversibility is partially covered; the description restates it but does add the non-obvious side effect that removing a follows/precedes relation reschedules the successor. That side effect is the strongest contribution. It says nothing about required permissions or what happens to the deleted relation's history.

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?

Two short sentences, the irreversible consequence front-loaded and the rescheduling caveat second. Zero filler.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, this is nearly sufficient: safety and side effects are covered. A mention of permission requirements or failure modes would complete it.

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% and the confirm parameter already documents the preview-then-approve flow thoroughly. The description adds nothing about relation_id sourcing (the schema points to list_relations/get_work_package_relations) or about the default confirm=false preview behavior. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (relation between work packages), which distinguishes it from create_work_package_relation and update_relation by verb alone. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive framing and the rescheduling note, which hints at when the consequence matters. However, nothing says when to prefer update_relation over delete, or what preconditions (permissions, relation state) apply.

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