create_model_relationship

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real value by describing the dry-run default, the eligibility checks run (publisher, managed properties, duplicate names) and the absence of implicit publish. However it never surfaces the destructive consequence the annotations warn about, so the agent still learns nothing about what execution actually mutates.

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 short sentences with the primary action and the authoring/dry-run model front-loaded. Slightly dense with comma-separated check lists, but nothing is redundant.

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 19-parameter, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers the preview semantics and the eligibility checks but leaves the majority of parameters and the shape of returned preview data unexplained. Adequate orientation, insufficient detail.

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?

With 19 parameters and only 21% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load, yet it only gestures at lookup creation and cascade rules. Key discriminators like entity_1/entity_2 versus referenced/referencing entities, intersect_entity_name, and how schema_name relates to solution_unique_name are left unexplained.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create native 1:N ... or N:N relationship') and names the distinct shapes each type requires. It is clearly separable from the sibling get_model_relationship and update_model_relationship, though it never names them directly.

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?

Explains that the default is a preview pass and that execution requires opting out, and the negative clause ('No ... update of existing relationships') routes the agent away from reusing this for edits. The exclusions are implied rather than tied to a named alternative tool.

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