register_relationship_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses required grant permissions, scope-dependent global permission, the user-scope default, and the side effect that cached tool definitions must be refreshed afterward. It stops short of describing idempotency or what happens on a name collision.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and sequencing tightly in three dense sentences. The final clause ('then write the edge and read it back') is useful but reads as slightly run-on; otherwise little waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers permissions, scope default, and the cache-refresh consequence an agent must know. Reasonably complete, though collision/error behavior is left undocumented.

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 88%, so the seven optional parameters are already richly documented in the schema, and the description's mention of the user-scope default merely restates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Register a relationship type') and distinguishes the operation from siblings like register_schema and create_relationship by naming itself as the vocabulary-definition step. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite workflow: discover vocabulary via list_relationship_types, then register, then refresh cached definitions, then write/read the edge. It also names the required grants. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. when the type already exists), so it falls short of a 5.

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