seed_add_relationship

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The inclusion of 'or replace' usefully discloses that existing relationships may be overwritten, which is important. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects on related data, leaving significant gaps.

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 single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is minimal and every word earns its place, achieving high conciseness with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is extremely brief. It does not explain the 'replace' behavior in practical terms, prerequisites, or expected outcomes. The complete schema coverage helps with parameter semantics, but operational context is lacking, making this incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it relies entirely on the input schema to explain each parameter. No extra value is provided beyond the schema.

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 action 'Add or replace a relationship' on an existing Seed table, identifying both the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle tables, documents, and views, as none of the siblings mention relationships. However, it is terse and does not elaborate on relationship types or scope.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the phrase 'on an existing Seed table' suggests this tool requires an already-created table, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or guidance on alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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