Neotoma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the basic 'delete' action by explaining that it creates a deletion observation for exclusion from snapshots/queries and notes immutability and reversibility for audit. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core action stated first ('Delete a relationship') followed by behavioral details. Both sentences earn their place by adding context without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity (a mutation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers key behavioral traits (deletion observation, immutability, reversibility) but misses details like response format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify the 'reason' or 'user_id' usage further). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('relationship'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_entity' or 'restore_relationship'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion operations beyond mentioning the creation of a 'deletion observation', which is helpful but not fully comparative.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_entity' or 'restore_relationship'. It mentions the tool's behavior (creates a deletion observation, immutable, reversible) but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to siblings.

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