relations_unrelate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key side effect: the relation is tombstoned, not deleted, and history remains. However, it does not address reversibility, idempotence, what happens if the relation is already tombstoned, or any permission requirements. The tombstone disclosure is valuable but incomplete.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and likely the most important behavioral detail. The parameter list is clean and every line adds a small semantic increment. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the five parameters, all are covered with at least a basic explanation, the tombstone behavior is disclosed, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Minor gaps remain—no mention of failure modes, idempotence, or whether an active relation is required—but the description is sufficient for a competent agent to invoke the tool safely.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief semantic labels for all five parameters—'Source finding', 'Target finding', 'Who is retracting it', 'Why'—which is useful. But 'rel: The relation to retract' is nearly tautological, and no parameter receives format, source, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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: 'Retract a relation.' It adds a clarifying behavioral detail—'Tombstones it — the row and its history remain'—which clearly distinguishes this from deletion and from the sibling relations_relate. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 implied usage is clear: use this when you want to retract a relation while preserving its history. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, does not name relations_relate as the counterpart, and gives no conditions or prerequisites such as whether the relation must currently be active.

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