approveRelationshipPattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds some behavioral context by stating that the pattern is applied and that the user should review inferred fields first. It does not disclose failure modes, authorization needs, or what happens to the underlying schema or data when the pattern is applied, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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 tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and then appends the critical precondition. Every clause earns its place and follows a logical order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The one parameter is fully documented in the schema, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers the core action plus the required review workflow. It is missing only a note on error behavior or how it relates to sibling actions like ignore/delete, so it is not quite flawless.

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%, and the single 'id' parameter is fully described in the schema as the ID of the suggested relationship pattern to approve. The description does not add any format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Approve and apply a suggested relationship pattern.' It also names listRelationshipPatterns as the prerequisite, which helps distinguish it from the read-only listing tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like ignoreRelationshipPattern or deleteRelationshipPattern, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear, actionable precondition: 'Call listRelationshipPatterns first so the user can review the inferred source, target, direction, type, mode, and confidence.' This tells the agent exactly when and in what sequence to use the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or compare it against alternative pattern actions such as ignoring or deleting.

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