add_relation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the relation is 'validated' and involves 'existing' items, hinting at validation and prerequisites, but it does not explain what validation entails, failure behavior, or whether duplicate/overwriting relations are allowed. This is minimal but non-trivial context.

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 single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 tool has an output schema, return values are covered. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description lacks guidance on when to use it, validation failure behavior, and whether relations can be updated or duplicated. It is adequate but not thorough for a tool with four parameters and no structured annotations.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps 'two existing knowledge items' to from_item_id and to_item_id, and 'relation' to relation_type. However, the 'explanation' parameter is not mentioned, and no details on value formats or constraints are provided, leaving a gap.

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 ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('a validated relation between two existing knowledge items'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_items and submit_review, which serve different purposes.

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 phrase 'between two existing knowledge items' implies a prerequisite that both items must already exist, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops 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.