recommend_relationship

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details—such as whether the tool checks against a metamodel or what happens with missing parameters. Since annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not insightful.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff, placing the core action first. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail; a sentence or two more would improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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 6 parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain parameter choices (e.g., id vs type, strict_archimate), leaving the agent under-informed for correct selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints that 'source/target ids or types' are used, ignoring 'intent', 'strict_archimate', and the interplay between id and type parameters. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 recommends valid relationship types for source/target IDs or types, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from most siblings like 'add_relationship' or 'get_relationship_compatibility', though the latter is closely related and not explicitly differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_relationship_compatibility' or 'add_relationship'. The description does not explain the intended context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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