Element edit relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only.' Since there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of disclosing return shape and does so in detail, including the semantics of solidOperators vs solidTargets. It stops short of describing pagination or error behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the read-only constraint and the core purpose, then a dense enumeration of returned fields. The single long sentence is information-rich rather than padded, though the parenthetical field list is heavy enough that a reader must parse carefully.

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 no output schema, the description fully substitutes by enumerating every returned relation field and its meaning, and it supplies the diagnostic rationale for calling the tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the single 'elements' parameter, so the schema already documents GUID format and the 1–1000 item bound. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns what affects editing' each element) and enumerates the exact fields returned (type, storyIndex, locked, editable, groupGuid, trimmedBy, mergedWith, solidOperators, solidTargets). This distinguishes it from the many sibling relation/detail tools an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to verify group/trim/merge/solid operations or to find out why an edit was refused.' It covers the diagnostic use case clearly but does not name alternative siblings (e.g. get_element_relations, get_element_details) to route the agent between them.

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