Doco Create Relation

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

Beyond the annotations (which only mark readOnly/idempotent/destructive as false), the description reveals that relations are auditable, that the server validates both ends' permissions and existence prior to creation, and implicitly signals non-idempotency by referencing an idempotency_key. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states purpose, target URI format, and server-side checks. No filler; every clause contributes.

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?

For a creation tool with six parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the critical URI format, and validation behavior. Combined with full schema coverage and an output schema, the agent has enough to call it correctly; remaining details like return values are presumably handled by the output schema.

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?

All six parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial semantics for target_uri by specifying the exact doco://doc/{id}#block={block_id} format, which is absent from the schema property description, and it frames source_document_id/source_block_id as a stable source block.

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 clear verb-resource pair: creates an explicit, auditable typed relation from a stable source block. The resource is specific enough to distinguish it from the many read/update/document sibling tools, and no sibling appears to create relations.

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 provides some context by specifying the target_uri format and explaining that the server validates permissions and block existence before creation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude any sibling, so usage guidance is mostly implied by the tool's purpose.

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