Adds a refine relationship from a source to a target element, indicating that the source refines the target in the SysML model.
Create a SysML Refine dependency from source to target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | ||
| target_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that a dependency is created, with no disclosure of side effects (e.g., whether an existing refine dependency is replaced), error conditions, or validation behavior. The write nature is implied but not elaborated.
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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured and front-loads the primary action and resource.
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?
Despite being a simple tool, the description omits key contextual details such as expected behavior when IDs are invalid, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the output schema contains. With no annotations and a sparse description, an agent may not know how to handle failures or confirm success. The tool's simplicity partially mitigates this, but the lack of behavioral or error information leaves it incomplete.
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 add meaning beyond the parameter names. 'From source to target' merely echoes source_id and target_id without specifying ID formats, validity, or relationship constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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), a resource (SysML Refine dependency), and the scope (from source to target). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_satisfy, add_verify, or add_dependency, which create different relationship types.
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 such as add_derive or add_dependency. The purpose implies its use, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.