Create a new relation

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: relation_number generation when omitted or 0, default values for invoice template and payment condition, and strict field requirements based on relation_type. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 structurally organized with a clear opening, optional/required field notes, and type-specific rules. However, it redundantly repeats 'Create a new relation' at the start, adding no value. The core content is concise, but the duplication and slightly unstructured flow prevent a higher score.

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 description covers essential context for a creation tool: what happens when optional identifiers are omitted, which fields are required or forbidden per relation type, and that defaults apply. The rich input schema provides detailed field descriptions and examples. There is no output schema to explain return values, but for a create operation the input constraints are the critical part. Minor gaps like error handling or authentication are not necessary given the annotations.

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 50%, meaning the schema documents many fields but not all. The description adds key semantic details for relation_number, sales_invoice_template_id, payment_condition_id, and the relation_type-specific required/forbidden fields. While it doesn't cover every parameter, the input schema already provides descriptions for most fields, so the description compensates reasonably for the coverage gap.

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's action: 'Create a new relation.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_relation and get_relation by its focus on creation. However, it repeats the phrase 'Create a new relation' twice and doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies usage: use this tool to create a new relation, with conditions for company vs private types. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_relation for modifications. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it earns a 3.

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