update_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. It fails to state that this is a mutation (updating a relationship entry), whether updates are partial/merge or full-replacement, whether is_private defaults to true (affecting visibility), or what fields are mutated. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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's maximally short (one phrase), which is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. There are no wasted words, yet the brevity provides almost no information value beyond the tool's name itself.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested data object, 10 discrete fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description should explain the purpose of the update operation, clarify field semantics, and discuss behavior. A single vague phrase is severely inadequate for a tool of this complexity. Compare with sibling delete_relationship/create_relationship which have similarly rich schemas.

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 only 50%, meaning half the parameters lack descriptions. The description itself ('人間関係を更新') adds zero parameter context. The nested 'data' object with 10 fields, including type enum values (mentor/colleague/friend/family/partner) and is_private default, goes entirely undocumented in the description. Schema covers some fields well, but the description does nothing to compensate for the 50% gap.

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 '人間関係を更新' (Update human relationships) is nearly a tautology of the tool name. It states the verb+resource but adds no scope detail, no field specifics, and no distinction from sibling tools like update_persona or create_relationship. The schema reveals this is a partial-update tool for relationship entries with 10 updatable fields, but the description conveys none of that.

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 vs alternatives. It doesn't clarify that this is for updating an existing relationship (distinct from create_relationship for creating, or delete_relationship for removal). No mention of context such as requiring the entry to already exist, or that this is a partial update versus full replacement.

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