Patch Managed Object Relationship

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the constraint on property name prefix and the 'via the schema service' context, but does not elaborate on the side effects of each action (add/update/remove) or the persistence implications.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence adds critical information.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, destructive actions), the description covers the core functionality, constraints, and parameter requirements. It could be improved by briefly stating what happens after a removal action, but overall it is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it specifies that propertyName must start with 'custom_', and for propertyDefinition it explains the requirement and points to getManagedObjectSchema for the expected structure. This compensates for the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 verb (Add, update, remove) and resource (custom relationship property on a managed object type), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the scope ('via the schema service') and the constraint on property names ('Only works with properties that have a 'custom_' prefix').

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 provides clear context for usage, including the 'custom_' prefix requirement and instructions for providing the property definition for add/update actions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternative tools for non-custom properties.

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