add-relation

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is an append or replace operation, what happens if target IDs already exist, or any side effects. The mutation behavior is opaque.

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 concise single sentence that communicates the core action without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Add', though it is under-specified, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

With 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to cover important context like operation semantics, side effects, or result expectations. This is insufficient for a mutation tool of moderate complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described (source object ID, class names, relation field, target IDs). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so with high coverage, a 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 identifies the action ('Add') and the resource ('objects to a relation field'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove-relation' and 'query-relation' by focusing on the add operation, though it does not explicitly mention the source and target objects.

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 such as 'remove-relation' or 'add-users-to-role'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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