add_relationship

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the semantics of each relationship type, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose operational details such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the relationship already exists, or any prerequisites (e.g., items must exist). This is adequate for a simple create operation but lacks full transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The list of relationship types is structured and each line provides distinct value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description adequately covers the core purpose and relationship types, but it lacks information about return values, error behaviors, or prerequisites. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, some of this context would be helpful. For a relatively simple create tool, this is a minimal viable description but leaves some 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?

The schema descriptions are generic ('source_id parameter'), but the description adds meaning by defining the allowed values for relationship_type and their semantics. It also implies that source_id and target_id are item identifiers. Although schema coverage is 100%, the description significantly enriches the parameter meanings, especially for relationship_type.

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: 'Add a relationship between two items.' It also lists the four relationship types, which further clarifies what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_relationship and get_item_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 provides clear context about when to use this tool by enumerating the relationship types and their meanings. It implies this is the tool for creating relationships, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. The context is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool over related ones like remove_relationship.

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