parent_objects

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 states 'Set parent-child relationship' and returns a 'Confirmation dict', but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the child's previous parent is removed) or validation rules. Insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 with one sentence for purpose, then clearly formatted Args and Returns sections. No extraneous information.

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?

With no annotations and a simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter definitions. However, it omits behavioral details (e.g., error handling, effect on existing relationships) and the return type is only vaguely described as 'Confirmation dict'. Adequate for basic understanding but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief definitions for both parameters ('Name of the child object' and 'Name of the parent object'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, no further details like name format or uniqueness constraints.

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 uses specific verb 'Set' and resource 'parent-child relationship between two objects', which clearly states the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'join_objects' or 'make_single_user' that perform different operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when objects already have parents or when the relationship would create cycles. No prerequisites or context provided.

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