create_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that relations are created, but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing relations), permissions, error handling, or the fact that the schema lists 10 relation types while the description only lists 7, creating inconsistency.

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 very concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and provides key guidance immediately.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and the complexity of nested objects, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify return behavior, duplicate handling, or the full list of valid relation types. The mismatch between description and schema reduces completeness.

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 0% for the top-level parameter, requiring the description to compensate. The description adds a list of recommended relation types, but it is incomplete (missing enables, replaced_by, learned_from) and does not explain the structure or constraints of the 'relations' array beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool creates relations (edges) between entities, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_relations or suggest_relations by focusing on creation and providing guidance on relation types.

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 advises that every entity should have at least one relation and to use specific types, avoiding generic alternatives. It implicitly guides when to use this tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention exclusions.

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