pbi_create_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the default cardinality and the precondition, but omits important traits such as whether the relationship can be edited after creation, whether it replaces existing relationships, permission requirements, or error behavior on incompatible columns.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the key action and default behavior, and contains no unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 7 parameters (4 required), the description is too brief. It lacks details about return values, failure modes, model modifications, and parameter ranges, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'from -> to' direction and the column existence requirement, but does not describe the meaning or allowed values of 'cardinality', 'cross_filter', 'is_active', or the role of each parameter beyond what is inferred from names.

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 (create a relationship), the default cardinality direction (many-to-one from -> to), and a precondition (columns must exist). It is distinct from sibling tools like create_measure, but does not explicitly differentiate from other potential relationship methods.

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 gives a precondition ('Both endpoint columns must already exist'), which helps agents know when the tool is applicable. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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