buddypress_create_friendship

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Create a friendship request' implies a write operation but doesn't specify whether this sends a pending request or immediately establishes friendship, what permissions are required, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error conditions), expected outcomes (e.g., returns a friendship ID or status), and usage context. The agent must guess these aspects, which is inadequate given the tool's complexity and write nature.

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%, with both parameters ('initiator_id' and 'friend_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain relationships between IDs, valid ranges, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 'Create a friendship request' clearly states the action (create) and resource (friendship request), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'buddypress_delete_friendship' or 'buddypress_list_friends' by focusing on creation rather than deletion or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'buddypress_create_message' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing users, permissions), when not to use it (e.g., if a friendship already exists), or direct alternatives like 'buddypress_delete_friendship' for undoing requests. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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