add_relation

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

The word 'validated' adds a behavioral trait beyond the annotations, implying that the relation is checked before being added. However, it doesn't disclose what validation entails, failure behavior, or whether the operation is reversible. Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), so no contradiction, but the description adds minimal context.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and no schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, details on optional parameters like cardinality or name, and any behavioral information about validation. The output schema exists but the description does not hint at it. Sibling tools and annotations provide some context, but the description itself leaves significant gaps.

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 carry the burden. It adds meaning to 'source' and 'target' as 'child columns' and 'parent columns', but provides no semantics for 'name', 'diagram', or 'cardinality'. The directionality helps, but other parameters remain unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('relation') with a clear direction ('from child columns to parent columns'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_table and add_column by focusing on relations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with remove_relation or other relation 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context signals list many sibling tools (add_table, add_column, remove_relation), but the description does not mention any when/when-not scenarios or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the action of adding a relation.

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