create_association

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds that it returns an existing identical association by default, reinforcing the idempotentHint. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, requirements (e.g., class existence), or constraints on system classes.

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 sentence that effectively front-loads the purpose and lists key parameters. It is concise and efficient, though a slightly more structured format could 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?

Despite having a well-described schema and output schema, the description lacks prerequisites (e.g., whether classes must exist) and does not explain 'non-system classes' or the distinction from 'create_relation'. For a tool with 7 parameters, more context is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions sourceClass/targetClass and sourceRole/targetRole with cardinality but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. The 'automationOnly' and 'ifExists' parameters are not elaborated.

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 idempotently creates a Huly association definition between two non-system classes, using specific parameters. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_relation' by specifying it's a definition, not an instance. However, it could be more explicit about the distinction from 'create_relation'.

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 implies usage for defining associations between classes and mentions key parameters. It explains the default behavior for 'ifExists'. But it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for creating relation instances) or provide alternatives.

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