update_relationship

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent with an update operation. The description adds nothing about behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, but there is no contradiction.

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?

A single sentence that succinctly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words or information.

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 is adequate for a simple 2-parameter update tool given the annotations, but lacks details on error conditions, return value (no output schema), and accepted values for relationship_type. More context would improve completeness.

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 50% (only 'id' described). The description clarifies that 'id' is a Relationship ID and that 'relationship_type' is the new type to set, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify allowed values or format for relationship_type.

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 'Update' and the resource 'relationship type between two constituents', and specifies the identifier is 'Relationship ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_relationship, get_relationship, and delete_relationship.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., create_relationship), no prerequisites (e.g., relationship must exist), and no mention of valid values for relationship_type or error handling.

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