create_relations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the required fields for each relation, but does not reveal any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, whether existing relations are overwritten or duplicated, how partial failures are handled, or any permission requirements. The mutation side effect 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 extremely concise, using two sentences to state the core purpose and required fields. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no extraneous content.

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 a single parameter and an output schema, the description provides the essential structure of the relations. It does not mention potential edge cases like entity existence validation, duplicate handling, or error behavior, which could be relevant for an agent invoking the tool. The description is adequate but lacks some contextual depth that would make it fully complete.

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 input schema provides no property descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. The description adds meaning by specifying that each relation must have 'from (str), to (str), relationType (str)', which clarifies the array item structure. However, it does not explain optional properties, examples, or any constraints on relationType, leaving gaps in 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 tool's function: 'Create multiple new relations between entities in the knowledge graph.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like create_entities (entities vs relations) and delete_relations (inverse operation). The scope is 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 implies its usage context: it is for creating relations, and sibling tools make it obvious that create_entities is for entities and delete_relations for removal. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude any cases. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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