create_dyad

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation with no destructive or idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the dyad has its own memory/rituals/state, returns a dyad_id, and is labeled 'Free'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the core action and key behavioral traits. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 high complexity (13 parameters, many siblings, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how optional parameters affect behavior, how the dyad interacts with other tools, or the structure of the returned dyad_id.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics or interaction details. At high coverage, baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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's action: forming a named relational unit between an agent and a partner. It uses a specific verb ('Form') and resource ('relational unit'), and adds conceptual context about the dyad being a third entity with its own memory, rituals, and state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dyad_state' or 'record_dyad_ritual'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or caveats. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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