Create Relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful domain convention (relations in active voice) that the annotations do not carry, but it is silent on non-idempotency — whether re-submitting the same relation creates duplicates or errors — which is the key behavioral risk here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The active-voice rule is stated tersely, though it arrives as an orphan second sentence rather than being attached to the relationType field it governs.

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, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing for a batch, non-idempotent graph mutation — duplicate handling, partial-failure semantics, and whether `from`/`to` entities must already exist — is not addressed anywhere.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning for the single `relations` parameter: it never explains that the argument is an array of {from, to, relationType} objects, nor whether entity names must match existing entities. Only the nested item-level field descriptions in the schema carry any semantics, and the description does not leverage or extend them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create multiple new relations") plus the domain scope ("between entities in the knowledge graph"). It is clearly distinguishable in kind from siblings like delete_relations and create_entities, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: call this when adding new relations. There is no statement of when-not to use it, no mention of the create_entities prerequisite, and no routing guidance versus siblings. The "active voice" sentence is a formatting convention rather than invocation guidance.

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