entity_relate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation (implying mutation/write), but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether relationships are reversible/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate relationships. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation operation and front-loads the core action.

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 tool has an output schema (which should document return values), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details about parameter formats, behavioral constraints, or usage context. For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters, more completeness would be helpful.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'relationship between two entities' which implies subject_id and object_id parameters, and 'predicate' is mentioned but not explained. However, it doesn't clarify what format IDs should be, what predicates are valid, or provide examples. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's obvious from parameter names.

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 'Create a relationship between two entities' clearly states the action (create) and resource (relationship between entities), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes an 'entity' in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like entity_create (which creates entities) and entity_query (which queries them), but doesn't specify the nature of the relationship beyond requiring a predicate.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this is for creating relationships between existing entities (unlike entity_create which creates entities themselves), there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., entities must exist first), constraints, or comparison to other relationship-related tools if any existed. The description provides basic context but no usage rules.

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