mmar_create_relationclass_instance

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

The description discloses the important behavioral detail that line_points are auto-populated from source/target coordinates, so the agent doesn't need to provide them. It also details the required fields in the JSON structure. Since no annotations are provided, this transparency is valuable, though additional side effects are not mentioned.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of required components, and a clear note about auto-population. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description covers the input structure and key behavior well for a create operation. However, it does not state the return value or any post-conditions, which would be helpful given there is no output schema. Overall, it is nearly complete for 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described, but the description goes further by explaining the nested structure of relationclass_instance_data (role_instance_from/to, attribute_instance) and the auto-population of line_points. This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new relationclass instance (connection/edge) within a scene instance', specifying the verb (create), resource (relationclass instance), and context (within a scene instance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mmar_create_class_instance and mmar_create_scene_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 context through 'connection/edge' and 'within a scene instance', making it clear this is for creating relations in a scene. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like mmar_update_relationclass_instance. The use case is implied rather than spelled out.

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