Update Relations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the useful detail that relations can be partially modified ('and/or'), but does not disclose what happens to unmatched relations, permissions required, or partial-failure behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence with the recommendation front-loaded and no filler. It could be tightened slightly, but every clause carries meaning.

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 mutation safety profile. The description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly, with only minor gaps around partial-update behavior and error handling.

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 coverage is 0% for the 'relations' array, but the nested fields (newFrom, newTo, newRelationType) already carry complete descriptions including 'omit to keep the current one'. The description restates that type and endpoints can change, adding concept-level mapping but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (change the type of existing relations, repoint endpoints) and distinguishes the operation from the delete-then-create alternative. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name the sibling tools (delete_relations/create_relations) directly.

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 explicitly states a preference condition: use this instead of deleting a relation and creating another. This tells the agent when to choose update_relations over the delete+create path, though no other alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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