set_family_parent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating it keeps 'both sides of every link, children and all' – disclosing that referential integrity is maintained and children are preserved during the parent edit.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence, which is appropriately sized. However, the embedded '-- the wife a record names' clause is opaque and does not clearly earn its place, adding confusion rather than information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the mutation's safety profile is fully carried by annotations, so the description's burden is modest. It covers the operation modes and the link-integrity behavior; what remains missing (e.g., existence requirements for the family) is minor.

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 all four parameters (role, family, person, replace) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb set (set/replace/remove) and a precise resource (the father or mother of an existing family), which cleanly distinguishes it from child-oriented siblings like add_child_to_family, update_child_ref, and move_child. The trailing clause '-- the wife a record names' is confusing and slightly muddies an otherwise crisp statement.

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 three operation modes (set, replace, remove) are implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as add_family or check_family_links, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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