add_interaction

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies mutation without destruction. However, the description does not add behavioral details beyond the basic action, such as whether duplicates are allowed, if dependencies are additive, or any side effects. With annotations already providing safety profile, the description provides adequate but not exceptional transparency.

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, two sentences that immediately state the purpose and provide context. Every word is meaningful; no filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, no nested objects) and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention return behavior (e.g., confirmation or error handling) nor does it distinguish from the similar add_interactions tool. This is a moderate gap for an AI that must choose among many similar tools.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds the context that source/target are function names and lists the possible interaction_type values, which the schema already does. The additional value is marginal, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool records a dependency between two functions by name, listing the interaction types (call, chain, borrow, compose, pipe). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_interaction and update_interaction, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from add_interactions (plural). The verb 'record' combined with the resource 'dependency' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 like add_interactions (plural). It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or the context in which it is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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