Create cmdb relation

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, but the description adds almost nothing beyond that: no auth requirements, no duplicate/conflict handling when adding a relation, no validation behavior. The single ':return:' line ('Response containing updated CI relations') is the only behavioral addition.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a raw docstring dump of ':param:'/':type:' lines that restate schema types rather than adding meaning. It is not bloated, but the structure is mechanical and low-value per line.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain at minimum the shape of relation objects and the role of the query/pagination params. It leaves the majority of parameters and the side effects of the mutation undocumented.

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% and the schema itself is just nullable untyped-ish properties, so the description carries the full burden. It documents only 5 of 12 parameters (className, sys_id, inbound_relations, outbound_relations, source), and even those are near-tautological type restatements. Seven parameters (data, attributes, rel_sys_id, sysparm_limit, sysparm_query, api_parameters, sysparm_offset) are unexplained — notably the query/limit/offset params, which are surprising for a create 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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Adds an inbound and/or outbound relation to the specified CI.' That is enough to separate it from siblings like delete_cmdb_relation or create_cmdb_instance. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as delete_cmdb_relation or create_cmdb_instance. The agent must infer context entirely from the tool name.

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