baasix_update_relationship

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only repeats the verb 'update' that is already in the tool name. It does not state whether the operation is destructive, whether updateData replaces or merges existing values, what side effects occur, or what the response indicates. This is effectively a placeholder for behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentence with no redundancy, but the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads the action but provides no information about parameters, behavior, or outcomes, so the sentence does not help an agent correctly construct a tool invocation.

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 tool has three required parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains almost nothing about how to invoke it. An agent cannot determine the expected structure of updateData, how sourceCollection and fieldName locate the relationship, what errors may occur, or what a successful update returns. This definition is below the minimum viable level of 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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter meaning. The descriptions in the schema are minimal—'Update data for the relationship' is self-referential—but the rule credits the schema for parameter documentation. The tool description does not clarify how sourceCollection and fieldName identify the relationship or what shape updateData should take.

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 is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name—'Update an existing relationship' restates baasix_update_relationship without adding meaningful specification. It does not define what a 'relationship' is, which fields can be updated, or how the update is applied. The qualifier 'existing' offers only minimal differentiation from create/delete siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus baasix_create_relationship or baasix_delete_relationship, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The word 'existing' implicitly suggests it is not for creating relationships, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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