add_relationship

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it adds a relationship, implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, requirements for entity existence, or whether the operation is idempotent. The absence of such details leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters including a nested object and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, failure modes, or whether the operation is conditional (e.g., if entities must exist). This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool, especially as a mutation operation.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only clarifying that source and target refer to entities and that the relationship is directed. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enrich parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'directed relationship (edge) between two entities in the knowledge graph.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_entity (which adds an entity) and extract_relations (which extracts relations from text) by specifying the exact operation on graph edges.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, but the purpose is implied: use this when you need to create a link between existing entities. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., entities must exist), leaving some ambiguity.

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