relation_add

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

The description explains the conflict resolution behaviors: preserve marks overlapping alternatives as conflicts, parallel allows coexistence, and supersede requires an explicit old relation ID. This is useful side-effect disclosure beyond the schema, though it does not describe return values or what happens after a conflict is marked.

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 focused sentence with no redundant wording. It packs key behavioral information about conflict strategies into a compact form.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits the temporal validity semantics, namespace/project scoping, confidence meaning, attribute usage, and the response/error behavior, leaving important context unspecified.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meanings, but it only clarifies conflict_strategy and supersedes. Most parameters (valid_from, valid_to, namespace, project, attributes, confidence, source_memory_id) are left to inference from their names.

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 ('Add') and the object ('a temporal fact'), and the tool name relation_add reinforces that this creates a relation. It does not explicitly mention 'relation' or contrast with entity_add/memory_add, but the intent is still 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use relation_add instead of relation_update or relation_search. It does explain the conflict_strategy behaviors, but it stops short of stating use cases or alternatives.

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