set_unresolved_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation and a queued-review workflow but says nothing about optimistic concurrency (expected_revision), permissions, reversibility, or what happens when the id/revision is stale.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, so conciseness itself is good.

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 five-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. Details on the revision guard, id format, and predicate conventions are missing, leaving the agent under-informed before calling it.

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 0% for all five required parameters. The description loosely covers the action ('add or remove') and the reference ('free-text'), but leaves id and especially expected_revision (a concurrency token) and predicate format entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb pair (add/remove) and resource (a grounded free-text relation reference) with a purpose (for later review). However, it gives no indication of how it differs from the sibling tool 'set_relation', and 'grounded free-text relation reference' is jargon that doesn't fully resolve what entity is being modified.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely named sibling set_relation. An agent must guess whether this tool is for unresolved/pending relations versus confirmed ones based solely on the phrase 'for later review'.

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