add_edge

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'adds a relationship' but does not mention side effects (e.g., creates records), error conditions, authorization, or idempotency. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short, clear sentences with no extraneous information. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 domain (cases, persons), the description lacks context about the caseId parameter and how edges relate to existing data. No output schema, so the agent doesn't know what to expect. The description is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's function.

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 description explains the 'from' and 'to' parameters as local IDs and gives label examples, adding value beyond the schema. However, it fails to explain the 'caseId' parameter, which is crucial for the context. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but remains incomplete.

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 verb 'adds' and the resource 'relationship between two people', distinguishing this from other tools like add_person or add_alibi. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or provide scope. It is specific enough for basic understanding.

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, nor any prerequisites or constraints. The description only provides label examples but omits context like required existing persons or case setup. The agent lacks direction for appropriate invocation.

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