evidence_case_file_relationship_assign

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint:false) and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about the dependency on evidence_case_file_create and the traceability purpose. It does not disclose behavior like idempotency, overwrite semantics, or failure modes, but annotations lower the bar for this dimension.

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 concise sentences plus a short prerequisite line. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides usage context, with no filler or redundant 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?

There is no output schema and the parameter descriptions are sparse, but the description provides workflow context and a clear prerequisite. It lacks detail on itemType/itemValue semantics and what happens after the relationship is assigned, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with three required parameters.

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 only 33% (caseFileId is described), and the description compensates only partially. It explains where to get caseFileId and hints that itemValue relates to a matter/client/system record, but it does not clarify the itemType enum (CHAT_CONVERSATION) or the expected format of itemValue. With low schema coverage, more parameter guidance is needed.

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 'Assigns a relationship on a case file' and explains it links the case file to an external/related entity reference for traceability. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling case_file tools like evidence_case_file_update or evidence_case_file_get.

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 usage context: 'Use after creating the case file when your workflow tracks which matter, client, or system record it belongs to.' It also names the prerequisite step (evidence_case_file_create → caseFileId). However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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