cml_create_relationship

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains types and patterns but does not mention side effects, validation behavior, or return values. The description adds some context (symmetric vs asymmetric) but lacks details on error handling or idempotency.

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 sentence followed by a concise enumeration of types and patterns. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant information. It could be slightly more structured, but it remains efficient.

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 tool with 9 parameters and complex relationship patterns, the description covers types and patterns but omits context like the need for existing bounded contexts, handling of optional parameters, or output behavior. Given the no output schema, the description should provide more completeness; it is adequate but not thorough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that Partnership and SharedKernel are symmetric (using participant1/participant2) while UpstreamDownstream is asymmetric (using upstream/downstream) and lists patterns like OHS/PL/ACL/CF, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 'Create a relationship between bounded contexts', uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes the types and patterns. Among sibling tools like cml_delete_relationship and cml_update_relationship, this is uniquely positioned as the creation variant.

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 implies usage for creating relationships with specific types and patterns, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cml_update_relationship. No prerequisites (e.g., bounded contexts must exist) or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent with minimal when-to-use guidance.

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