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

The annotations already establish that this is non-destructive and not open-world, and the description adds important workflow behavior about founder approval and the propose-change path. It also clarifies the semantic separation between role tags and stage, though it does not mention duplicate handling or what happens if the relationship already exists.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose before adding field semantics and the approval workflow. The role-tag versus stage warning earns its place because it prevents a likely data-placement error.

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 complex nested create tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives enough context to select the tool and assemble the core relationship object. It is not fully complete because it omits several optional or specialized fields and edge-case behavior, but the main invocation path is well covered.

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, and it does explain several important fields: person and firm, role tags, stage, fit score citations, and connector. However, many nested properties such as tier, email, notes, terms, signal, reachLaterAt, terminalReason, and the two stakeholder IDs are not explained, leaving a significant portion of the input object semantically undocumented.

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: it adds an investor relationship to the raise pipeline, and it enumerates the core relationship components. It also distinguishes direct creation from the sibling workflow tool fundraising_propose_change, so an agent can tell what this tool is for 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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: prefer fundraising_propose_change so the founder can approve, and call this tool directly only when the founder has approved in the conversation. That is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule with a named alternative.

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