Edit Relationship

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It clarifies that only the note is updated and that the relationship must already exist, but it omits what happens if the relationship_id is invalid, whether the operation is idempotent, whether it returns anything, and any permission or side-effect information. This is a mutation tool with minimal disclosure.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise with no wasted words, every sentence adds value.

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 2-parameter update tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it relative to other relationship tools, and it does not describe return values or error behavior. Given no output schema and no annotations, it falls short of being fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for the note parameter ('describes the nature of the relationship between contacts'), which slightly enhances the schema's 'Updated relationship description', but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Update'), the resource ('note on an existing relationship'), and the scope ('existing relationship'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_relationship, delete_relationship, and get_relationship by specifying exactly what is being edited.

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 usage is implied: use when needing to change the note on an existing relationship. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, such as using create_relationship for new relationships or get_relationship for reading. No exclusions are provided.

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