add_satisfy

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create', implying a mutation, but does not mention side effects, failure conditions, permissions, or what happens if elements are invalid or a relationship already exists. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a Satisfy relationship') and immediately clarifies the direction. There is no redundant information or filler; every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter create operation, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter roles. It does not mention return values, but an output schema exists. However, it lacks usage context (when to use vs. siblings) and behavioral details (failure modes), which are important given the large set of similar relationship tools.

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 provides only parameter names with no descriptions. The description adds directional meaning by specifying that satisfying_element_id is the source and requirement_id is the target. However, it does not explain the semantic nature of a Satisfy relationship or any constraints on the parameter values, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 action: creating a Satisfy relationship, and clarifies direction (from satisfying element to requirement). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_verify or add_derive, which target different relationship types. The verb and resource are 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_verify, add_derive, or add_refine. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether both elements must exist or be of specific types. An agent cannot decide between this and similar relationship-adding tools without further context.

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