deleteRelationshipPattern

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly carried by structured data. The description goes beyond that by flagging the operation as irreversible, requiring user confirmation, and disclosing the cascade behavior when deleteExisting is true — exactly the kind of 'what gets destroyed' detail that annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, reversibility, confirmation requirement, and cascade semantics. The most important constraint (irreversible) is front-loaded immediately after the action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety hints, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical context: irreversibility, the confirmation requirement, and the side effect of the optional parameter.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's restatement of the deleteExisting cascade ('relationships previously materialized by this pattern are also removed') is essentially a duplicate of the schema text and adds no new syntax, default, or edge-case meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Delete) and a specific resource (saved relationship pattern), which cleanly separates it from the many sibling deletion tools (deleteRecord, deleteProperty, deleteTextIndex) that target different resources. An agent can identify the target of this tool without opening 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 description supplies one operational directive ('Confirm with the user before calling') but gives no guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus siblings like ignoreRelationshipPattern or listRelationshipPatterns, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the verb rather than explicitly framed.

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