buddypress_delete_friendship

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a friendship' implies a destructive mutation, but it fails to describe any behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects related data (e.g., notifications, activities), what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 maximally concise with a single three-word sentence that states the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While severely under-specified, what's present is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, what the response looks like, error conditions, or behavioral implications. Given the complexity of a friendship deletion operation in a social platform context, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for agent understanding.

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% with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Friendship ID'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description neither compensates nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 'Delete a friendship' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'buddypress_delete_friendship'. It provides the verb 'delete' and resource 'friendship' but offers no additional specificity about what constitutes a friendship deletion operation. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'buddypress_create_friendship', it doesn't clarify scope or mechanism beyond the obvious.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing friendship ID), consequences of deletion, or relationships with sibling tools like 'buddypress_list_friends' for finding IDs. There's no indication of when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative approaches.

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