tdx-cmdb-add-relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Add a relationship' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the relationship already exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid relationship, what happens after creation, error scenarios, or return values. The agent lacks crucial context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationship semantics, what 'typeId' values are valid, or how 'isInverse' affects the relationship direction. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Add a relationship') and the resource ('between two TDX configuration items'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tdx-cmdb-create' or 'tdx-cmdb-update' which might also involve CMDB operations, leaving room for ambiguity about when to use this specific relationship tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for CMDB operations (e.g., tdx-cmdb-create, tdx-cmdb-update), there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for adding relationships, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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