archimate_create_relationship

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

With no annotations provided, the description is expected to disclose behavioral traits. It mentions validation but does not clarify what happens on validation failure (error/rollback), whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. The lack of detail about mutation behavior is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no superfluous information, and effectively front-loads the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose.

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 description omits critical context: return value (e.g., the created relationship object), error handling, validation specifics (e.g., which relationship types are valid for which element pairs), and behavior for optional parameters. Given the complexity of relationship creation and the absence of an output schema, this lack of detail hinders correct invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the tool description adds no additional meaning. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description fails to clarify parameter interdependencies (e.g., access_type only relevant for Access type).

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 elements', distinguishing it from sibling tools like archimate_list_relationships or archimate_delete_relationship. The additional note about validation against the ArchiMate specification adds specificity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archimate_add_connection_to_view). The description implies its use for creating relationships but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.

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