updateRelationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool's name and action, disclosing nothing about partial updates, required fields beyond 'id', whether fields are replaced or merged, permission needs, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a serious gap.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Given the tool has 7 parameters and no annotations, one sentence stating the obvious is too thin to earn its place; it sacrifices needed detail for brevity.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides no additional context about update behavior, return values, or constraints, making it completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full scope and implications.

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 low (29%), with only 'id' and 'type' having brief descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema's existing entries, leaving fields like 'emails', 'phones', 'addresses', 'firstName', and 'lastName' unexplained. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 clear action 'Update' and a resource 'relationship contact', which specifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like createRelationship and getRelationship. However, the phrase 'relationship contact' is slightly ambiguous, and it could be more explicit about whether this updates a relationship entity or the contact details attached to it.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'Update' implies it should be used for existing relationships rather than creation (createRelationship) or retrieval (getRelationship), there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusion of other tools.

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