update_relation

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose whether the update is a merge or replacement, what happens if the relation does not exist, or if any side effects occur (e.g., cascading updates to related entities). Permissions or authentication needs are not mentioned.

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 (one short sentence), which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, but would benefit from additional context about how the update works or what output to expect.

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 complexity of the tool (nested object with many optional fields, no output schema, multiple sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how updates affect existing properties. The 'enhanced properties' term is not clarified, leaving ambiguity about which fields can be updated.

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?

Although the tool description adds minimal parameter information, the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each nested property (e.g., 'from', 'to', 'relationType', 'strength'). Since schema description coverage is effectively high due to these property-level descriptions, the description does not need to repeat them, earning a baseline of 3.

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 states the action ('Update') and the resource ('existing relation... in your knowledge graph'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_relations or delete_relations. However, the phrase 'enhanced properties' is vague and does not specify what enhancements are possible.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_entities_batch or create_relations. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the requirement that the relation must already exist, or that from/to/relationType must uniquely identify a relation.

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