add_design_relation

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait - the relation is bidirectionally queryable, so a reverse lookup is created - but says nothing about duplicate relations, idempotency, what happens if source/target do not resolve, permissions, or the response shape.

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?

One-sentence purpose followed by a tight bulleted list of relation values; no filler. The list earns its space because the schema provides no enum, though the value definitions could be slightly more precise.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers relation values adequately but leaves source/target format and the consequences of the write unspecified. An agent could call it, but may guess at identifiers.

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 0% and there are no enums, so the description must supply meaning. It does this well for the relation parameter by defining four values and their semantics, but source and target are never explained (node IDs? titles? paths?), leaving a real 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?

States a specific verb and resource: adding a relation in the design tree, with the distinctive property that it is bidirectionally queryable. This is readily separable from add_design_node, though the description never names that sibling to contrast itself.

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?

Usage is only implied ('add a relation in the design tree'); there is no statement of when to link two nodes versus creating a node, or when a relation is preferable to using get_design_graph. The relation-type list does give real guidance on which relation value to pick, which lifts it above pure omission.

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