Neotoma

Does 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 clearly indicates this is a write operation ('Create'), describes the relationship types and their semantics (e.g., EMBEDS usage), and mentions optional metadata. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions required, or what happens on duplicate relationships.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second explains relationship types, the third provides usage examples, and the fourth gives a workflow. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 complexity of creating relationships with multiple types and workflows, and with no annotations or output schema, the description does a decent job but has gaps. It explains the what and how-to but lacks information on return values, error handling, and system constraints. For a write operation with no structured support, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description compensates by detailing the expected parameters: relationship_type with specific enum values, source_entity_id, target_entity_id, and optional metadata like caption and order. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the empty 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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a typed relationship between two entities', specifying exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_relationship' by focusing on creation rather than deletion, and from 'list_relationships' by being a write operation instead of a read operation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including specific examples like using EMBEDS for container-asset relationships and a detailed workflow for handling images/files in Neotoma. It also implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by not overlapping with sibling tools like 'merge_entities' or 'correct'.

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