add_path

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a 'Phase B stub', which signals that the tool may be incomplete or non-functional, but it does not describe any actual behavior, side effects, permissions, or failure modes when invoked. This is a minimal level of transparency.

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, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified. It does not front-load any critical information beyond the basic purpose. The 'Phase B stub' is important but placed at the end. The brevity is not a virtue here because it omits essential details.

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?

For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information on how to use the tool, what inputs are expected, what the output schema contains, or any error conditions. The 'Phase B stub' label suggests it is not production-ready, but that is not sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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% and the description does not mention the parameters at all. The parameters 'diagram_id' and 'relationship_id' have no semantic explanation beyond their names, which are not self-explanatory in context. The description adds zero value to parameter understanding.

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: 'Add a relationship path to a diagram.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'relationship path' is sufficiently distinct from generic actions. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'route_path', which may have overlapping functionality, so it loses one point.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single sentence with no context about prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions. The 'Phase B stub' note implies it may not be ready, but no direction is provided.

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