create_ci_relationship

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate these. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond '[Write]'. It does not disclose what happens if the relationship already exists, whether it returns the relationship ID, or any side effects, which would be helpful given the openWorldHint=true annotation.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with '[Write]' and directly states the purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (3 required string params, no output schema, annotations present), the description is minimally complete. It explains the core function but could be improved by mentioning that the CIs must exist or that the relationship is an edge in the CMDB graph. No output schema exists, so return value is not expected to be described, but a note about success/failure would help.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, describing all three parameters (parent, child, type). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Create' and the resource 'relationship between two CMDB Configuration Items'. It includes '[Write]' to indicate the operation type, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_relationships and other create_* tools by specifying CMDB CI relationships.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the CIs must exist, nor does it exclude scenarios where a relationship already exists. There is no comparison with sibling tools like update_ci_relationship or create_asset.

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