create_partnership

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the core function but omits details such as whether it overwrites existing partnerships, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. Only the function is stated.

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 very concise: two main sentences followed by bullet points. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the purpose with examples. No superfluous text.

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 simple create tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameters, and examples. It could mention the expected return value (e.g., created partnership object) but is otherwise complete.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'name' represents a role (e.g., 'Käufer', 'Mieter') and provides examples. This goes beyond the schema's explanation of 'Role name'.

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 that the tool links a contact as a partner (buyer, tenant, etc.) to a property, with concrete examples like 'Frau Schmidt is the buyer of Hauptstraße 12'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_ownership' or 'create_contact' by focusing on relationship creation.

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 explicitly lists three use cases (link buyer, tenant, any relationship) and explains the 'name' field. However, it does not provide guidance on when *not* to use this tool or mention alternative tools like 'create_ownership' for ownership-specific roles.

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