manufacturer_relation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect: 'Parts with the same MPN that become one manufacturer merge,' which warns the agent that recording an alias mutates data. It also describes the return shape (merges, or registry plus probable pairs), but does not state persistence/reversibility or permission requirements, so it is strong rather than complete.

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 most actionable content — the ask-user-then-record workflow and the 'do not record unconfirmed' rule — is buried mid-paragraph after a labored framing sentence. The phrasing is repetitive ('the pairs that are two manufacturers', 'one manufacturer' repeated) and could be trimmed substantially without losing meaning.

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?

Three optional, fully documented parameters plus an output schema mean the description needn't explain return values, and it still covers the critical workflow, the mutation/merge consequence, and the confirmation rule. What remains thin is whether the call is a read or a write depending on which fields are supplied.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (name, other, relation with alias/distinct/empty semantics) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of names and pairs mirrors but does not extend that, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 frames the tool as 'the manufacturer registry of the store' and explains the domain concept (a part keeps its datasheet manufacturer name; the registry says whether two names are one manufacturer). However, it never states a clean verb/resource pair for the tool action itself — it reads as both a query ('gives the merges, or the registry...') and a mutation ('record it here'), leaving the agent to infer that the same call does both.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger: 'When a tool reports that the registry does not know if two names are the same manufacturer, ask the user which relation is correct, then record it here and do the step again.' It also adds a prohibition: 'Do not record a relation that the user did not confirm.' That is clear when-to-use and a guardrail, though no sibling alternatives are named.

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