Relationship

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

The description explicitly mentions both 'setting' and 'reading', which aligns with the readOnlyHint=false annotation and makes the read/write nature transparent. It does not detail side effects like persistence or mutation semantics, but that is not required given the annotation already covers the read-only aspect.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with a clear structure: a general statement of purpose, followed by explicit use-case and non-use-case guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and how to differentiate it from the faction tool. It covers selection and usage without needing to explain return values since no output schema exists.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, each with a clear description. However, the tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: managing directed relationships between entities, NPCs, or factions. The phrase 'setting or reading how two parties relate' further clarifies the core functionality, and the explicit contrast with the faction tool removes ambiguity about scope.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. 'Use when: setting or reading how two parties relate' tells the agent exactly the scenarios, and 'Do NOT use when: tracking faction progress — use faction (action: update)' directs to the appropriate sibling tool, leaving no guesswork.

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