relate_matters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: the relation preserves each matter's independent context and does not merge their materials, which is consistent with destructiveHint=false. It remains silent on whether the link is directional, what happens if source/target do not exist, and what a successful call returns.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the qualifier about preserved context. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted in other dimensions.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it does not explain the identifiers, the role of reason, or the effect of a successful call. It partially compensates by clarifying the non-merging semantics, but substantial gaps remain.

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 all three parameters (source, target, reason) are required, yet the description never mentions any of them. It does not say that source and target are matter identifiers or what the reason field is used for (audit trail, display, retrieval filter), leaving the agent to guess from bare property names.

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+resource: saving an association between two matters ('保存两个事项的关联'), which is clearly a linking operation rather than a create/read/search operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'link_context', which plausibly overlaps, so the sibling differentiation that would earn a 5 is absent.

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 phrase '保留独立背景，不合并全部资料' hints at when this tool is preferable to merging, but it never names an alternative tool or gives an explicit when/when-not condition. An agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the concept of 'not merging'.

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