create_relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing relations are replaced, if duplicates are allowed, or if entities must exist). The description is minimal on behavioral details.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second provides a useful guideline. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple creation tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does and gives a quality guideline. However, it lacks information on error handling or preconditions, which would improve completeness.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds semantic value by specifying that relations should be in active voice, which provides a naming convention for the relationType field. This improves parameter understanding 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Create'), the resource ('relations between entities in the knowledge graph'), and that it handles 'multiple new relations'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_relations and create_entities.

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 description provides a quality guideline ('Relations should be in active voice') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer it over batch creation or handling duplicates. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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