createRelationship

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

The description discloses that the relationship is its own contact record linked to personId, which is a key structural behavior beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, the description leaves gaps: it does not mention response behavior, required conditions beyond personId, or any side effects (e.g., duplicate handling, permissions). For a create tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. The key behavioral note about being its own contact record is included without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and 1 required field, the description is mostly complete for a create tool. It explains the core concept and linkage, though it omits any mention of return value or error behavior. Since no output schema exists, a note on the returned object would elevate completeness, but the current context is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds that personId links the relationship to an existing person, but this is already reflected in the schema ('Person ID this relationship is associated with'). No additional parameter meaning is provided, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Create'), the resource ('relationship contact'), and the scope ('for an existing person') with concrete examples (Spouse, Brother, Partner). It distinguishes from createPerson by emphasizing the linkage to an existing personId and that the relationship is its own contact record.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when adding a relationship contact tied to an existing person. It implies that this is the alternative to creating a standalone person, but it does not explicitly name createPerson or state when not to use it, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not listing.

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