app_encryption_declarations_builds_create_to_many_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deprecation status and that this is a POST mutation, which is useful, but says nothing about side effects, whether it appends or replaces linkages, auth requirements, or what the response contains.

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?

Deprecation is correctly front-loaded, but the path is needlessly repeated in parentheses ('POST ... (POST ...)'), which is wasted space, and the body-shape sentence is a pointer rather than content.

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, no output schema, and a nested body object, the description should explain effects and remediation. It only signals deprecation and defers the body envelope to an external schema, leaving the agent unable to judge what the call does to existing data or what to do instead.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description defers body shape to 'OpenAPI components.schemas.AppEncryptionDeclarationBuildsLinkagesRequest' and adds no semantic detail about the id or body beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 path 'POST /v1/appEncryptionDeclarations/{id}/relationships/builds' identifies the resource and that a create-to-many relationship operation is happening, so an agent can infer it links builds to an app encryption declaration. However, the description never states this in natural language and offers no differentiation from sibling relationship tools beyond the embedded path.

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 flags [DEPRECATED] but gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and crucially does not name a replacement tool or migration path. There is no statement of prerequisites (which build ids, permissions, or linkage format).

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