Register Relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this mutates persistent state, what happens on duplicate id, whether relationships are reversible or can be removed, or what '跨局' (cross-run) implies for scope behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a major gap.

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?

Extremely short – a single phrase – but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There's no front-loaded structure because there is essentially no content to structure.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition provides almost nothing. The description is completely inadequate for calling this tool correctly.

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 must compensate for all 5 parameters, and it documents none. The description mentions no parameter at all – not id, entity_id, scope, affinity, or project_id. An agent cannot infer that 'id' is the relationship identifier, 'scope' controls the enum of run/meta/campaign/global/slot, or that 'affinity' is a numeric weight.

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 '注册 NPC 跨局关系' restates the tool name with minimal added specificity – it says to register a cross-run NPC relationship, but doesn't clarify what a 'relationship' means (affinity score? scope?), how it differs from register_entity/register_fact, or what data is captured. The title and name already convey this much. It's not a pure tautology, but it falls short of naming a specific verb+resource distinction.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. With many sibling registration tools (register_entity, register_fact, register_event, register_character_arc), an agent has no way to know when to call this versus those. The description contains zero usage context.

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