Set Relationship

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that reviewed decisions persist across re-scans and that only accepted joins feed join-path resolution, which is exactly the kind of downstream consequence an agent needs.

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?

Three short sentences, verbs and resource front-loaded, with the persistence and join-path facts given as compact follow-ups. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description is nearly complete for an 8-parameter mutation tool. The remaining gap is that it does not signal which actions require relationship_id versus source/target, and the 'annotate' wording conflicts with the 'update' enum value.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema and actually introduces slight ambiguity: it says 'annotate' while the action enum offers 'update', so an agent cannot map that word to a concrete enum value.

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 names a specific resource (a join between two columns) and enumerates the operations (accept, reject, add, annotate, delete), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_relationships or find_join_path, which keeps it from a 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 sentences 'Reviewed relationships survive re-scans' and 'Only accepted relationships are used for join paths' implicitly explain why one would accept or reject, but the description never states when to use this tool versus list_relationships or find_join_path. Routing guidance is left to the schema's relationship_id note rather than the description.

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