tables_db_create_relationship_column

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. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the tool returns. The external link might contain this information, but it's not in the description itself.

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 - just one sentence plus a link. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the external link suggests the description might be under-specified rather than optimally concise, as critical information is deferred to external documentation.

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 complex database mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a relationship column is, what it returns, error conditions, or how it integrates with the broader database system. The external link doesn't compensate for missing contextual information in the description itself.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'relation type' values are available, what 'on_delete' constraints exist, or how 'two_way' relationships work. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Create relationship column' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what a 'relationship column' actually does in this database context. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'tables_db_create_string_column' or 'tables_db_update_relationship_column' beyond the obvious difference in column type.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing existing tables), when relationship columns are appropriate versus other column types, or how this differs from the sibling 'tables_db_update_relationship_column' tool. The external link doesn't substitute for explicit usage guidance.

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