Update a relation

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

Annotations already indicate mutating behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by explicitly stating that partial updates are allowed ('Not all fields are required; you can send only the fields you want to update'), which is useful behavioral context not present in annotations. However, it does not mention validation rules, error conditions, or side effects beyond the update.

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 short and mostly front-loaded, but the first sentence 'Update a relation.' repeats the tool title and adds no information. The second sentence carries the meaningful content, and the endpoint reference is helpful. Slight redundancy prevents a 5.

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?

Given the complex input schema (nested oneOf, many optional fields) and no output schema, the description provides only minimal guidance. The partial-update note is important, but the tool would benefit from context about when to use it relative to create_relation, how the body selection works, or what happens on success. The rich schema compensates somewhat, but the description alone is not fully complete for an agent trying to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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 67%, and the input schema richly documents the body structure with oneOf types, examples, and field-level descriptions. The description adds a key semantic point about partial updates, which directly affects how the body parameter should be constructed. This is valuable but not extensive; it does not clarify the discrimination between RelationInputCompany and RelationInputPrivate beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Update an existing relation by ID') with a specific resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_relation, but the verb 'update' and 'existing by ID' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus create_relation or other relation tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions. An agent must infer that this is for modifying an existing relation based only on the name and the phrase 'existing relation'.

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