bexio Contact Relations

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description explicitly warns for delete: 'destructive, cannot be undone'. It also details the behavior for search (AND logic, default 'like' operator) and list (pagination, ordering). No contradictions. However, it does not discuss authorization or rate limits, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, the added context is valuable.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers all actions without redundancy. Every sentence adds value. It could benefit from minor structuring (e.g., bullet lists), but as prose it is very concise and effective.

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 CRUD tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the relation concept, all CRUD actions, pagination hints, search behavior, and required fields. The only missing part is explicit return format, but since there is no output schema, the description cannot be blamed. It leaves no major 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 input schema has 100% coverage (context signals), and the description adds substantial meaning: example of linking person to company, clarification of required payload fields for create, listing searchable fields, explaining order_by suffix '_desc', and describing search criteria structure. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 starts with a clear statement: 'Manage relations between two contacts (e.g. link a person to their company)'. It then enumerates all actions (list, search, get, create, update, delete) and their specifics. This is a specific verb+resource description that clearly distinguishes this tool from other bexio tools, which are for different entities.

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 context for each action, such as required vs optional parameters for list, search, create, etc. It does not explicitly state when to not use this tool or mention alternatives, but the actions are self-contained and the tool's domain (contact relations) is clear. A small gap is the lack of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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