Create relations

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely behavioral context beyond that: missing-entity relations are silently dropped and surfaced under 'skipped', and duplicates are neither created nor reported — a non-obvious edge case consistent with the idempotency hint.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then layered behavior. Each sentence carries distinct information (return value, failure mode, duplicate handling) and none is padding, though the explicit 'Returns the relations created' line is partly redundant with the output 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and it correctly focuses on the skipped/duplicate behaviors an agent can't infer. Only the create_entities prerequisite for entity existence is left implicit rather than spelled out.

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% and the nested RelationInput documents from, to and relationType with examples ('uses', 'depends_on'). The description adds directional/type semantics but no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Create directed, typed relations') and scopes it to 'existing entities', which implicitly distinguishes it from create_entities and create_entities-adjacent siblings. An agent can tell this tool's job apart from the other create_* tools without opening a schema.

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 constraint that relations are only saved between existing entities implies that create_entities must run first, but this prerequisite is stated as a behavior rather than as guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing versus alternatives like create_entities or delete_relations.

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