parse_add_relation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It states the operation is additive ('agrega'), which implies existing relations are preserved. It also explains the conceptual nature of relations. However, it does not disclose behavior around duplicates, invalid objectIds, or permissions, and it omits the targetClassName parameter entirely, leaving a gap in understanding the full mutation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a brief conceptual note. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema, the description covers the core operation and most parameters but omits targetClassName, a required input. It also lacks details on edge cases, such as duplicate handling or return values. Given the 5-parameter nested schema, the description is only partially complete.

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 adds meaning by explaining className, objectId, relationField, and objectIds in the phrase 'Proporciona className, objectId del objeto que contiene la relación, el nombre del campo de relación y un array de objectIds de los objetos a agregar.' It fails to mention targetClassName, a required parameter. The schema descriptions cover all parameters, but the tool description's partial coverage is not fully compensated, especially given the schema has nested structure.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Agrega uno o más objetos a un campo de tipo Relation en Parse Server' (Adds one or more objects to a Relation field). It differentiates from sibling tools like parse_query_relation and parse_remove_relation by focusing on the add operation for Relation fields, and from parse_add_to_array by targeting Relation rather than Array fields.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'Las relaciones permiten crear vínculos muchos-a-muchos entre objetos' (Relations allow creating many-to-many links). This implies the tool is appropriate for many-to-many relationships. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as preferring parse_add_to_array for array fields.

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