create_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates relationships (implying a write/mutation operation) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 in Korean with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action ('creates'), though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with 1 parameter (a complex array), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or practical usage context. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool correctly without trial and error.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'relationships between entities' which loosely relates to the 'relations' array parameter, but adds no meaningful semantics: no explanation of what 'from', 'to', or 'relationType' represent, valid values, or examples. The description fails to bridge the gap left by the undocumented 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 '엔티티 간의 관계를 생성합니다' (Creates relationships between entities) states a clear verb ('creates') and resource ('relationships between entities'), establishing basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what types of relationships or entities are involved, and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_relations' beyond the obvious create/delete difference.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., entities must exist first), use cases, or comparisons to related tools like 'add_observations' or 'create_entities'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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