create_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says nothing about what happens on creation (e.g., whether is_private defaults matter, whether real_name is stored differently, implicit visibility behavior). The schema shows an is_private default of true, but the description doesn't clarify side effects or behavioral traits of creation.

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 short (six words in Japanese) and provides no structure. While brevity is generally good, this is under-specification rather than concise - it omits all behavioral and usage context. A single phrase with no elaboration fails to earn conciseness credit because it conveys almost no 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?

Given the tool has a nested object, 10 sub-properties, auth-scoping considerations via profile_id, and no output schema, the description should explain return values, behavior when profile_id is unset for account-scoped keys, and relationship semantics. None of this is addressed. The schema's is_private=true default is a notable behavior that isn't surfaced in prose. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 50%. The nested data object has well-documented fields with descriptions for each (type enum values, confidence range 1-10, is_private default true). The top-level profile_id also has a useful description explaining auth-key scoping behavior. The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema does moderate work. With 50% coverage and no parameter info in the description, this sits at baseline.

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 "人間関係を新規作成" translates to "Create new human relationship" - it states a verb (create) and a resource (relationship), which is clear on surface level. However, it provides no distinction from siblings like create_relation or create_persona, and no elaboration on what a 'relationship' entails in this domain. It's minimally clear but lacks differentiating detail.

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?

There is no usage guidance whatsoever. The description doesn't state when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., whether a profile must exist first), or how it differs from create_relation, update_relationship, or create_persona. The profile_id parameter's description hints at auth scoping but that's schema-level, not usage guidance.

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