Delete a specific relation from the Geo knowledge graph by providing its ID. Use this to remove outdated or incorrect connections and keep the graph accurate.
Delete a relation from the knowledge graph
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the relation to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation and names what is destroyed (a relation in the knowledge graph). It adds no further behavioral context such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or permission requirements, but the annotation already covers the primary safety trait.
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?
A single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the core operation. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.
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 simple one-parameter destructive operation with a clear schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It could mention permanence or behavior when the relation does not exist, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity.
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%, with the id parameter already documented as 'ID of the relation to delete.' The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.
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 verb (Delete), the resource (relation), and the context (knowledge graph). It is distinguishable from siblings like delete_entity and create_relation without needing to inspect the schema.
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 usage is implied: use this tool when you need to remove a relation from the knowledge graph. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against alternatives such as delete_entity, leaving some selection guidance to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.