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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses that re-teaching refreshes the edge, that links are team-visible and attributed, and that `unrelated` suppresses derived connections. It does not cover failure/auth conditions, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the relation legend follows immediately; every sentence adds usable information. It is on the longer side for a 4-param tool, but no sentence is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description already covers scope, directionality, idempotency, and visibility. What remains thin is error/prerequisite behavior (e.g. same-team requirement is only implied by the schema), leaving it just short of complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by defining the reading direction ('repository <relation> to_repository') and giving each enum member concrete semantics (depends_on = consumes an SDK/package/service; ships_with = changes here usually mean changes there). This adds interpretive value beyond the raw enum list.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it teaches the team's org map how two repositories relate, and it explicitly names the downstream effect on sibling get-team-context-tool. The relation vocabulary is spelled out, so an agent can tell this apart from read-only context tools at a glance.

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?

Clearly states when to use it: 'when you discover a relationship the map is missing, or when the user tells you how repos fit together.' Context is unambiguous, though no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given beyond the get-team-context reference.

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