create_relation

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 that it 'creates' a relation, implying a mutation, but does not mention whether existing relations are overwritten, whether validation occurs, what happens on duplicate relations, or whether this is reversible. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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?

One clear sentence that is concise and front-loads the action and object. It wastes no words, though it could have used the spare space meaningfully to add behavioral or usage detail.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified: it doesn't mention whether the graph becomes immediately persistent, what happens if source/target entities don't exist, how relation_type is constrained, or what the response/return behavior is. Given the mutation risk and the large sibling list, the description should provide more context.

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 100%, so structured fields already document all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the input schema provides, such as relation_type vocabularies, expected formats, or constraints on source/target IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema fully covers parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb ('create') and resource ('relation between two entities in the knowledge graph'). It clearly describes what the tool accomplishes but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like create_entity or search_entities; although the name is fairly descriptive, the description doesn't explicitly contrast with related graph tools.

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 use when the agent needs to establish a relation in the knowledge graph, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to use create_relation versus create_entity or search_entities, nor any conditions or alternatives. The context is clear enough from the resource noun, but there are no stated exclusions or alternatives.

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