agora_relate_claims

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the relation is attributed to THIS agent and that different agents may independently assert the same relation, but it omits mutation side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, and validation behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no wasted words. The parenthetical relation list is compact and useful.

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, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the core operation, allowed relation types, and attribution semantics; the remaining gaps are minor details about direction and the optional note parameter.

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. It adds important meaning by listing the allowed relation_type values, which the schema does not constrain, but it does not explain source_claim_id, target_claim_id, or the optional note parameter.

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 (Assert a relation) and resource (between two Claims), and it enumerates the allowed relation types. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as agora_create_claim or agora_relate_knowledge_objects.

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 when to use the tool by describing the operation, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is named as an alternative.

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