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 write-but-not-destructive profile is known. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not explain what happens to an existing relationship for the same field, what expected_version guards against, or which permissions are needed. For a mutation with a concurrency token, this is a real gap.

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 with no filler and no repetition of the title. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

This is a four-parameter, all-required mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, so the description is the only source of meaning — and it leaves the caller unable to determine what is created, whether it overwrites prior state, or how to supply a valid expected_version. Given the schema richness is effectively zero, the description is not complete enough to call the tool correctly on the first attempt.

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% and all four parameters are required, so the description carries the full burden. It only loosely gestures at field_id and label ('the column that links records') and says nothing about collection_id (which collection the relationship belongs to) or expected_version (clearly an optimistic-concurrency token whose semantics are critical to a successful call).

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 and resource ('saves the column that links records') with illustrative examples (city, owner, supplier), so the domain concept is graspable. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings like save_your_fields, set_your_field or get_connection_columns, and 'saves the column' leaves unclear whether a new relationship definition is created or an existing one updated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_relationships for reading relationships or set_your_field for individual field config. The agent must infer the call context entirely from the name and the ambiguous title 'Connect records by a column'.

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