remove_relation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate destructiveness. It adds the 'matching validated source and target endpoints' specificity, which clarifies what gets removed, but it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. No contradiction with annotations.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and object. No redundant information or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simple 3-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description carries enough information to understand the core operation and its matching logic. It could be improved by specifying what happens if no matching relation exists or whether multiple matches are possible, but the current level is adequate for a straightforward removal 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?

The schema has zero descriptions for the three required parameters, and the description only indirectly indicates that source and target are endpoints. 'Diagram' is not explained at all. The description provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter formats and roles.

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 the specific verb 'Remove' targeting a 'relation', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_relation, remove_table, and remove_column. It also names the key matching criteria (validated source and target endpoints), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when a relation matching the given source and target endpoints needs to be removed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions. It is minimal but not misleading.

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