relate

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

The annotation only declares readOnlyHint=false, so the schema and description carry the rest. The description usefully discloses non-obvious graph semantics — a supersedes edge records succession without retracting the node — but says nothing about the replay/idempotency contract (request_id), the optimistic-concurrency requirement (expected_revision), or whether disconnect is reversible.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation set, and the second sentence carries a genuinely non-obvious caveat. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is richly annotated, so the description needn't restate parameters. Still, for a mutation tool spanning three actions it omits the failure modes (ambiguous NodeRef is described only in the schema) and the concurrency/replay behavior an agent must plan around.

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 effectively complete: actions, weight bounds, NodeRef resolution rules, cloud mirroring, and expected_revision are all documented inline. The description clarifies the meaning of one enum value (supersedes) but adds nothing for the other eleven edge types or the three actions.

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?

States specific verbs (connect, disconnect, reweight) against a specific resource (typed directed edge), which is far more informative than the bare name 'relate'. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as 'reference' or 'link_cloud', so sibling disambiguation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus 'reference', 'link_cloud', 'share', or 'replace', nor any mention of preconditions. The only guidance-like sentence is a semantic footnote about the supersedes edge type, not a usage rule.

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