delete_relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that omitting relationType deletes all relations between from and to, which is a critical destructive edge case. It does not mention reversibility or failure modes, but the main behavioral risk is well communicated.

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 two short sentences; the first states the primary purpose, the second provides the essential input contract and edge-case behavior. No filler or repetition of schema 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 deletion tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core operation, required fields, and the dangerous omission behavior. It is sufficient for invocation, though it does not address non-existing relations or provide sibling-based selection context (which is more of a usage-guideline gap).

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 only defines a generic 'relations' array with additionalProperties allowed, so parameter information in the description is essential. The description specifies the required per-item keys (from, to, relationType) with types, and explains the effect of omitting relationType. This substantially compensates for the empty schema, though examples or constraints on values are absent.

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 opens with a clear action 'Delete multiple relations from the knowledge graph', naming the verb and resource. The relation deletion is distinct from sibling tools like delete_entities and delete_observations, so the purpose is 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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over delete_entities or delete_observations. The description implies usage by describing the deletion operation, but it lacks any when-to-use/when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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