mmar_create_relationclass

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key constraint (class_references must exist) and enumerates the JSON structure, but does not mention side effects, return value, or authentication requirements, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 compact with three focused sentences: the core action, an important prerequisite, and the data structure. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential inputs and a critical prerequisite, but it does not specify error behavior or what the response contains. It is sufficient for routine invocation, though not exhaustive.

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 already describes both parameters, but the description goes further by detailing the exact shape of relationclass_data including role_from/role_to with class_references and bendpoint, which adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's high-level summary.

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 verb ('Create'), the resource ('relationclass'), and the context ('add it to an existing SceneType'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like mmar_create_relationclass_instance by specifying it creates the relation type, not an instance.

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 the critical prerequisite that referenced classes must already exist in the SceneType. This gives practical guidance on when it is appropriate to call this tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like mmar_update_relationclass.

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