set_affiliation

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

The annotations only provide negative hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the main burden. It discloses that the tool creates an affiliation and may resolve an org id or get/create an org by name, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain duplicate behavior, side effects on existing organizations, or whether existing affiliations are updated.

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 sentence and front-loads the primary operation ('Create an affiliation'). It avoids filler, though the phrase 'get/creating by name' is grammatically awkward and could be smoother.

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 mutating tool with 6 parameters, no idempotency hint, and no usage conditions, the description omits important context such as how valid_from/valid_to/confidence should be used, whether duplicate affiliations are prevented, and whether the person must already be known. The output schema exists, but it does not make up for missing operational behavior.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies that 'org' can be an id or a name to resolve/create; the meanings of person_id, role, valid_from, valid_to, and confidence are left entirely to their names and JSON schema fields. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create an affiliation', and clarifies that the org may be resolved by ID or get/created by name. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like set_relationship, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_relationship or record_fact, and no mention of prerequisites like whether the person must already exist. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but the description leaves tool selection mostly to inference.

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