create_relations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that existing relations are skipped, but it does not state whether the tool is idempotent, what happens on duplicate attempts, or any side effects. Important mutation details are missing.

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 concise with two clear sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it could be slightly more structured, it contains no wasteful content and is easy to parse.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it does not explain the return value or error handling, and with multiple sibling tools, more context about when to use it would improve completeness.

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 input schema describes all parameters with full coverage (100%), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb (create), the resource (directed relations), and the scope (between entities). It also adds the behavior of skipping existing relations, which is specific and helpful. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_entities or delete_relations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_observations or delete_relations. There is no indication of prerequisites, when not to use, or how it fits into a workflow.

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