Establishes a Verify relationship linking a verifying element to a requirement.
Create a Verify relationship from a verifying element to a requirement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requirement_id | Yes | ||
| verifying_element_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, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action, implying a mutation, but provides no information about side effects, error conditions, reversibility, or required permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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, tightly worded sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and object, achieving maximum conciseness.
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete for a tool with two required parameters and many similar siblings. It lacks any guidance on element prerequisites, duplicate relationship behavior, or error handling, and does not address the ambiguity of which verifying/requirement types are applicable.
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 mentions 'verifying element' and 'requirement', which map to the parameter names, but adds no detail about expected formats, whether IDs must reference existing elements, or any constraints. It barely goes beyond the schema's property titles.
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'), the resource ('Verify relationship'), and the direction ('from a verifying element to a requirement'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling add_* tools by specifying the relationship type, making its 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 given on when to use this tool versus the many similar add_* siblings (add_satisfy, add_derive, add_refine, etc.). It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.