record_relation

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

The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: re-recording an existing link updates confidence, backing claim, and dates rather than duplicating it, which is important upsert semantics not captured by 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the first defines the action with an example, and the second immediately clarifies the important idempotent update behavior. It is appropriately front-loaded and sized.

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?

With an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to understand purpose and upsert behavior. Minor gaps remain around relation-type semantics and explicit routing versus sibling recording tools, but core invocation guidance is present.

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 moderate at 57%, and the description references confidence, backing claim, and dates as updateable fields. However, it does not explain the relation type enum, source/target resolution formats, or the valid date parameters beyond a broad category mention, leaving some schema gaps unaddressed.

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 operation—linking two entities—and gives a concrete example (TSMC SUPPLIES NVIDIA), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes this as relation recording rather than claim, thesis, or evidence recording, even without explicitly naming siblings.

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 implies when to use this tool by describing entity-to-entity links and re-recording behavior, but it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives such as record_claim or record_evidence. It also omits prerequisites like whether entities must already exist.

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