Relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate the core distinction between 'set' and 'get' and the directed nature of the relationship. However, it does not mention overwrite semantics, return behavior for get, or any side effects beyond the implied mutation from 'set'.

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 very concise: one sentence for the core function, one for when to use, and one for when not to use. It front-loads the essential purpose and wastes no words.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool: it defines the domain, the actions, and the exclusion case. It does not describe what a 'get' returns, but the schema's entity_id parameter partially covers that, and the tool is relatively simple.

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 already has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful domain context ('directed', 'entities, NPCs, or factions') but does not meaningfully elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Manage') and resource ('directed relationships between entities, NPCs, or factions'), and it distinguishes itself from the similarly named faction tool by explicitly stating what it is not for. An agent can clearly tell this tool handles pairwise relationship queries/updates rather than faction progress.

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 gives explicit guidance: use when 'setting or reading how two parties relate' and do not use when 'tracking faction progress', directing to faction (action: update). This clearly states the intended conditions and provides an alternative.

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