create_relationship

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

The description explains the tool's behavior (creates a relationship, lists types, includes an example) but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or constraints. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, which is partially met but lacks depth.

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 relatively long but includes necessary details and examples. It could be more concise by separating parameter definitions from narrative, but it remains readable and informative.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers relationship types, a specific use case, and optional metadata. However, the inconsistency between the description and the input schema (zero properties vs. implied parameters) slightly detracts from completeness.

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?

Even though the input schema has zero properties, the description adds significant meaning by specifying required parameters (source_entity_id, target_entity_id, relationship_type) and optional ones (caption, order). This compensates for the empty schema, clarifying what the tool actually expects.

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 purpose: creating a typed relationship between two entities, and enumerates the valid relationship types. It also provides a specific use case for EMBEDS, making the purpose distinct from siblings like create_relationships.

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 concrete guidance for using EMBEDS with a workflow example, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like create_relationships. This leaves some ambiguity about preferred usage.

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