create_related_item

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 states that the tool creates a relationship and returns a JSON string, but it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether duplicate relationships are rejected, whether existing relationships are affected, or any permission/authorization requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear parameter list and return value. The valid resource types list is useful but adds length; overall, every section earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, and the description covers the basic call shape and return type. However, it lacks guidance on relationship semantics, duplicate handling, and error conditions, which an agent would need to invoke it correctly in edge cases. It is adequate for a straightforward call but not complete for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does list each parameter with a brief explanation (source_type, source_id, destination_type, destination_id, notes) and enumerates valid resource types, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the relationship semantics (e.g., directionality, whether the relationship is symmetric, or what 'notes' should contain), so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a relationship between two resources'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_related_item and delete_related_items. It also enumerates valid resource types, adding useful scope. It loses a point because it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling relationship tools, though the verb+resource is clear enough.

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 description implies usage by listing required arguments and valid resource types, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_related_item or delete_related_items. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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