card_remove_relation

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds the useful disclosure that '用户层内容保持独立' (user-layer content remains independent), implying the operation is scoped to the adapter layer. However, it does not disclose whether the removal is destructive, reversible, permission-gated, or how it affects other layers or baselines.

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 one compact sentence with no redundant filler, and the key action is front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though it sacrifices clarity by relying on unexplained jargon like 'Adapter' and '关系基线'.

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 tool with four parameters and minimal annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it. The meaning of Adapter, baseline, from_id, to_id, and scope are all under-specified, and the output schema cannot compensate for missing input semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters, but it only hints at 'baseline' and gives no meaning for from_id, to_id, or scope. The directionality of from_id and to_id is not explained, and the baseline object's structure and role remain undefined.

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 ('移出' / remove) applied to '本层 Adapter' based on a '关系基线' (relationship baseline), which is more than a tautology. However, the term 'Adapter' is unexplained and it is unclear whether the tool removes a relation, an adapter entity, or a layer's relation mapping, so the purpose remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as card_set_relation, card_relations, or card_set_shared. It does not state prerequisites, whether this is the inverse of card_set_relation, or what distinguishes it from other relation-modifying tools.

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