fmod_add_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only describes the operation without disclosing side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., whether the target must exist, if the relationship can be overwritten). This is insufficient for safe usage.

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 very concise: one clear sentence plus a code-like comment example. It front-loads the purpose and avoids redundancy. The parentheses comment could be removed, but overall effective.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a high-level purpose but lacks details on errors, prerequisites, and parameter constraints. The example aids understanding, but the tool's domain complexity demands more context for complete agent comprehension.

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 67% (target and other have descriptions, relationship does not). The description adds an example for the 'relationship' parameter, which helps but does not specify its format or allowed values. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage; the example provides some additional meaning.

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 action (add) and the resource (relationship) with an example involving 'banks' on an event. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'fmod_remove_relationship' as the add counterpart. However, it could provide more context about the nature of relationships in FMOD for full clarity.

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 includes an example but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the many specialized 'add' siblings. It does not mention alternatives or constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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