update_relationship

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

The description reveals that updates merge 'properties' and that certain fields ('access_type', 'influence_strength') are only meaningful for specific relationship types. Annotations indicate idempotent (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructive, which aligns with the update semantics.

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 well-structured with sections for Args, Returns, Errors, and a note about immutability. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; bullet points improve readability.

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 complexity (2 parameters with nested object), the description covers return type (Success envelope with RelationshipDetail), error cases, and parameter details. With an output schema present, it is sufficiently 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains both parameters: 'relationship_id' as the ID, and 'updates' as a mapping with supported keys and their types/restrictions (e.g., 'name' as string, 'access_type' constrained to specific values). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Update an existing ArchiMate relationship' and specifies immutable fields (endpoints, type) versus mutable ones. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_relationship' and 'delete_relationship'.

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 states endpoints and type cannot be changed and advises recreating to change those. While it does not explicitly say 'when to use this tool,' the context of updating versus adding or deleting is clear.

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