aras_create_relationship

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and reveals a non-obvious side effect: dependent items are created inline within the relationship when dependentProperties is used. It also discloses that the tool is disabled in read-only mode. It does not mention return shape or permission requirements, but the key surprising behaviors are covered.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words; the main purpose and resource are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes either core meaning, parameter guidance, or a usage constraint, and the dependentProperties rule is compressed into one clear sentence.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers what is created, the inline dependent-item mechanism, the primary use case, and a read-only constraint. The main gaps are the return value of the created relationship and whether relatedId and dependentProperties are mutually exclusive.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining that dependentProperties is an alternative to relatedId and causes inline item creation, which is not apparent from the schema alone. It also reinforces relationshipType examples like 'Part Document' and 'ECR Affected Item', making the parameter usage clearer.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Crea una riga di relzione fra due elementi' and gives concrete examples like 'Part Document' and 'Part BOM'. It also clearly differentiates the tool from siblings by stating it is the only way to link an Affected Item to an ECR/ECN.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('E' l'unico modo di collegare un Affected Item a una ECR/ECN') and explains the dependent-element routing rule: pass dependentProperties instead of relatedId when dependent items cannot be created first. It does not name alternative sibling tools for more common relationship creation cases, leaving a small gap in when-not guidance.

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