Add a UML dependency relationship linking a client element to a supplier element in your SysML model, enabling clear traceability between dependents.
Create a UML Dependency between a client and supplier element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| client_id | Yes | ||
| supplier_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a UML Dependency,' which implies a model modification but does not mention side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or what happens if the dependency already exists. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. While it is short, it is appropriately concise for what it conveys, with no wasted space.
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 three parameters (two required) with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that only helps with return values, the description is far from complete. An agent lacks critical information about what client_id and supplier_id refer to, how to obtain them, and the meaning of name. The description does not compensate for the sparse structured metadata, leaving significant gaps 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'client and supplier element,' which hints at the meaning of client_id and supplier_id, but does not explain the format (IDs, names, paths), the optional name parameter's purpose, or any constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare property names.
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 specific resource 'a UML Dependency between a client and supplier element.' This distinguishes it from other creation tools like create_association or create_generalization by naming the dependency type and its two endpoints, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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, such as create_association for associations or create_connector for connectors. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or examples of appropriate contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.