edit_relation

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'update properties' without explaining side effects, error handling, whether missing relationships are created, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks detail, it is not verbose, and the structure is efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema details, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens on success, what errors might occur, or the expected behavior when the relationship does not exist. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's effects or edge cases.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already defines each parameter's purpose. The description adds no extra semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('properties of an existing relationship between two entities'). It implicitly distinguishes from create/delete siblings by specifying 'existing', though it does not name any sibling explicitly. The resource is specific enough for an agent to identify the tool's role.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_relation or delete_relation. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., relationship must exist) or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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