Create Relationship

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 adds important behavior beyond the schema: 'Relationships are bi-directional and visible on both contact records.' This tells the agent that creating a relationship has a side effect on both parties, which is valuable. It could mention permission requirements or return values, but the provided behavioral detail is solid.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then providing relevant behavior and usage details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 simple create tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, target object types, relationship behavior, and note usage. It doesn't mention return values or error cases, but that's not critical for a straightforward create operation. Overall, it's complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

This parameter's schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'note' parameter by clarifying it should describe the relationship type, with examples like 'Spouse' and 'Referred by,' which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Description of the relationship.' This enrichment justifies a 4.

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 action: 'Create a relationship between two contacts or companies.' It uses a specific verb (create) and resource (relationship), and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing creation rather than editing, getting, or deleting. It also clarifies the relationship can involve contacts or companies.

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 clear context for use: creating a relationship between two contacts/companies. It also provides direct guidance: 'Use the note field to describe the relationship type (e.g., Spouse, Referred by).' It does not explicitly mention alternatives like edit_relationship, but the purpose is sufficiently clear that it doesn't require explicit exclusions.

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