set_relationship

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description's 'Create' aligns with that. The description adds useful context: relationship is directed and both people must already exist. However, it does not disclose behavior on duplicates, validation failures, or whether an existing relationship is updated or replaced.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the core semantics are immediately clear.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no guidance on type or optional fields, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation beyond the minimal happy path. The output schema availability off-sets the need to describe return values, but the input parameter semantics are largely unexplained.

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 parameter meaning. It only hints at subject_id and object_id via 'two existing people' and 'directed,' but it says nothing about the required 'type' parameter or optional label, confidence, valid_from, and valid_to. The agent is left to guess what types are acceptable and how temporal or confidence fields behave.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('relationship'), and key qualifiers: directed, between two existing people. This distinguishes the tool from read-only graph tools like get_relationship_graph and from other record-creation tools like record_fact or record_observation.

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 implies this tool is for person-to-person edges and that both endpoints must already exist, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over alternatives such as record_fact, record_observation, or set_affiliation. It provides no when-not-to-use or sibling-name guidance.

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