Delete relation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Destructive' adds no new behavioral information beyond the structured data. It does not explain whether only the relation link is removed, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the relationId does not exist.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with the core action stated immediately. The standalone 'Destructive' sentence is a fragment that mostly duplicates the annotation, mildly reducing the efficiency, but overall it remains appropriately concise.

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?

The core operation is stated and the annotations cover safety and idempotency, so an agent can understand the basic call. However, the description omits useful context such as what a GHL relation is, how to discover relationId, and whether the linked records themselves remain untouched.

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 only 50%, and the required relationId parameter has no schema description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining relationId's format, provenance, or how it maps to the two records, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('relation'), and clarifies the scope as 'between two records.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling relation tools like ghl_create_relation and ghl_get_record_relations, as well as from delete tools targeting other GHL resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites such as obtaining a relationId via ghl_get_record_relations mentioned. The word 'Destructive' is a warning, not usage guidance.

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