update_record_relations

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'full coverage', implying overwriting of existing relations, which is a key behavior. However, it does not disclose other important aspects like destructiveness, permission requirements, or reversibility. The hint is present but insufficiently detailed.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase that captures the essential purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While very brief, it contains no superfluous information. Could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal: it does not explain return values, error conditions, or the meaning of 'full coverage' in practical terms. Given the complexity of a mutation tool, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's existing descriptions. Baseline score of 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 'Update record relationships (full coverage)' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (record relationships), and 'full coverage' indicates it replaces all relations. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_record' (updates fields) and 'get_related_records' (retrieves), though not explicitly from 'create_record_with_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_record' or 'create_record_with_relations'. The phrase 'full coverage' hints at replacing all relations, but there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.

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