graph.relation.create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action of creating a relation but does not reveal whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate attempts, permission requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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, which is front-loaded but overly terse. It lacks essential details to earn its place, resulting in under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A more expanded description with parameter hints would be better.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain return values, constraints on relation types, or how to interpret results. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based solely on this documentation.

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 the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters. Neither 'source_kind', 'target_kind', 'relation_type', nor 'rationale' are explained. The agent is left to guess valid values and semantics, which is critical given no enums or constraints in 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 the verb 'creates' and the resource 'relation between two nodes of the graph catalog', distinguishing it from the sibling tool graph.relation.delete. However, it does not clarify the nature or direction of the relation, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., nodes must exist) or scenarios where the tool should not be used. This leaves the agent without important contextual cues.

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