Create a UML generalization relationship linking a specific classifier to a general classifier in SysML models.
Create a UML Generalization from a specific to a general classifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| general_id | Yes | ||
| specific_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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a generalization is created, but does not mention side effects, required element types, validation, reversibility, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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, which is efficient, but it omits essential context. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the brevity works against completeness—it could be slightly expanded to include parameter clarifications without becoming verbose.
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 the tool's complexity (creating a relationship between two classifiers) and the lack of annotations or schema descriptions, the description is inadequate. An output schema exists, which may document the return value, but the description does not cover usage context, prerequisites, or error handling, leaving critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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, and the description does not explain what specific_id and general_id represent beyond the schema titles. It does not clarify that these are element IDs, their required types, or any constraints, so it adds no meaning over the bare schema.
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 clear verb (create) and resource (UML Generalization) and specifies the direction from specific to general. It is distinguishable from other create_* tools by naming the relationship type, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_dependency.
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 or create_dependency. There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.