ignoreRelationshipPattern

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

Annotations declare it as a non-read, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: the pattern is dismissed rather than applied, and the user should review it first. It doesn't clarify whether an ignored pattern is persisted or removed, which is the one remaining ambiguity against deleteRelationshipPattern.

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?

Two short sentences, the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With a full output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the single-parameter schema is complete. The description supplies purpose and workflow context; only the ignore-versus-delete distinction is missing for full completeness.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Ignore a suggested relationship pattern') and clarifies the effect with 'without applying it', which distinguishes it from approveRelationshipPattern. It does not explicitly name that sibling or deleteRelationshipPattern, so the differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

It gives a sequencing prerequisite ('Call listRelationshipPatterns first so the user can review the inferred pattern'), which is useful workflow context. However, it never states when to choose ignore versus approveRelationshipPattern or deleteRelationshipPattern, leaving the core selection decision to inference from the tool names.

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