create_relationship

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'create', implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or what happens if the relationship already exists. The lack of detail limits agent understanding of consequences.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It could add a second sentence to clarify required parameters or the meaning of 'typed' without becoming verbose. Currently it under-delivers.

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 5 parameters (4 required) and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter roles, output expectations, or how this relates to siblings like run_cypher. An agent would lack critical context for correct invocation.

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (from_entity, to_entity, relation_type, project, properties). Parameter names offer some clues, but without descriptions, an agent cannot infer expected formats or constraints, especially for the complex 'properties' object.

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 action ('create') and the resource ('relationship'), and specifies it is 'typed' and involves two entities. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_relationship and create_entity. However, it could elaborate on what 'typed' means in terms of relation types.

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 run_cypher (which can also create relationships), or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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