manage_asset_relationship

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only hints at async operations (job_id) and bulk create. It does not mention side effects, mutation persistence, permissions, error behavior, or what actually happens on delete/create beyond the action names.

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 compact, scannable parameter list with a one-line purpose up front. It avoids redundancy, though the opening sentence is generic and the list format is dense, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The tool has 7 actions and 8 parameters, but the description only explains parameters per action and does not explicitly define the behavior or return semantics of each action. While an output schema exists (covering return values), the lack of action definitions leaves gaps in understanding the full functionality, especially for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It does a good job mapping each parameter to its relevant action (e.g., display_id for list_for_asset, relationship_ids for delete) and gives the structure for the relationships dict. However, it omits details like required fields within the relationship dict or type specifics for primary_id/secondary_id.

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 opens with 'Manage asset relationships' and enumerates specific actions (list_for_asset, list_all, get, create, delete, get_types, job_status), clarifying the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like manage_asset or manage_asset_details, so it's not a full 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_asset or manage_asset_details. It only lists parameters and their associated actions, without any context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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