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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the prerequisite condition (reference fields must already exist) and the cardinality notation, but says nothing about atomicity, partial-failure behavior, or validation of the referenced cells/fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the verb and batch scope come first, then the workflow placement. No filler, though the leading emoji and the parenthetical notation note are decoration rather than load-bearing.

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 batch write tool with no output schema and annotations that only say 'not read-only, not destructive', the description covers placement and prerequisites but omits what happens if one entry fails, whether the call is atomic, and how errors are surfaced. Adequate but with clear gaps for a multi-item mutation.

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%, so the schema already documents relations and expectedProjectId, including the cardinality enums. The description's only added gloss is labelling cardinalityFrom/cardinalityTo as 'Merise crow's foot' notation, which aids interpretation but does not explain the individual enum values or the onDelete/onUpdate semantics.

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?

States a specific verb + resource + batch scope ('Creates several FK relations in a single call'), which immediately distinguishes it from the singular create sibling add_relation and from add_fields_batch. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'phase 3 of the ERD workflow, after all the reference fields have been created via add_fields_batch.' This is a real prerequisite statement with a named predecessor tool. It stops short of naming add_relation as the single-relation alternative or stating when-not-to use the batch form.

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