monica_relationship

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

The description warns that 'delete is irreversible,' which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other important traits such as whether updates are partial or full, authorization requirements, or side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.

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, consisting of two short sentences. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope and a critical warning. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (CRUD with 7 parameters) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior for list, or nuances of create/update operations. The schema provides structure but the description misses key contextual details.

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 does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely summarizes the actions. The schema already explains each parameter adequately.

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 'Manage relationships' and lists the CRUD actions (list, get, create, update, delete), making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like monica_contact or monica_relationship_type, which could cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list vs get, or which sibling tool to choose for a given task). The description lacks explicit context for decision-making.

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