create_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. The active voice hint adds minor context but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral details, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and a stylistic requirement. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (a mutation tool creating relations in a knowledge graph), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent under-informed. The active voice hint is insufficient to cover these gaps, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 description adds minimal semantics by implying 'relations' is an array of objects with 'from,' 'to,' and 'relationType,' but doesn't explain what these mean beyond the schema's structure. It doesn't clarify data formats, constraints, or examples, leaving significant gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 ('create') and resource ('multiple new relations between entities in the knowledge graph'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_entities' (which creates entities, not relations) and 'delete_relations' (which removes relations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'add_observations' might be similar in some contexts), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 versus alternatives. It mentions 'relations should be in active voice,' which is a stylistic hint but not a usage guideline. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to siblings like 'create_entities' or 'delete_relations,' leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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