monica_relationship_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Manage relationship_types. Actions: list, get.' and does not mention side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The schema's action parameter descriptions provide some detail, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 very short (one sentence) but at the cost of completeness and accuracy. Conciseness is acceptable, but misleading content reduces its effectiveness.

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 has 4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a relationship type is, how to use the actions effectively, or how it relates to other tools. Significant gaps remain for the agent to understand its role.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually contradicts it by stating only 'list' and 'get' actions while the schema supports all five. This mismatch reduces clarity and fails to add value.

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 'Manage relationship_types. Actions: list, get.' which identifies the resource and listed actions but is vague about the full scope. The schema includes additional actions (create, update, delete) that are omitted, making it misleading. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like monica_relationship or monica_relationship_type_group.

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 siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where alternatives are better. The description lacks any usage direction.

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