mmar_update_relationclass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the diff-and-apply behavior and the need for the complete desired state, but it omits authentication requirements, potential side effects, or response details. This 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and packs critical usage details (complete state, diff behavior) without any filler or 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the target, the expected payload shape, and the update semantics. Slight vagueness around 'other properties' and no mention of return behavior prevent a perfect score.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters well (100% coverage). The description adds important meaning by clarifying that relationclass_data must be the complete desired state and that the server diffs it against the current state, which prevents the agent from treating it as a partial patch.

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 a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('relationclass') and clarifies it's an edge type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_relationclass, delete_relationclass, and get_relationclass.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to update an existing relationclass and send the complete desired state, implying it is not for creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it relative to similar update tools like update_class.

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