associations_create_relation

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), not idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether existing relations are overwritten, any side effects, or required permissions. It merely restates the action without enriching the agent's understanding of consequences.

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 a single, concise sentence, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It lacks essential details about the tool's purpose and usage, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The structure is fine, but the content is insufficient.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and a domain that involves associations between records, this description is inadequate. It does not explain what a relation represents, how the parameters interrelate, or why a user would use this over other association tools. The schema helps but is not a substitute for a fuller description.

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%, and the schema provides clear explanations for each parameter, including examples for firstRecordId and secondRecordId. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create Relation for you associated entities' states a specific verb (create) and resource (relation), but it's ambiguous what a 'relation' is in this context. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling 'associations_create_association', which likely creates an association definition. The description is not a tautology but lacks specificity about the entity types involved.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing association or which record types are valid. The description gives no context about when this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the parameters alone.

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