Add Relationship

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

Annotations already provide good safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds return value info but no additional behavioral traits such as authentication needs or side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's action, purpose, and relationship to other tools. No wasted words.

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 tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description explains purpose, prerequisite, and downstream usage. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds an example of a relationship ('mentors') but does not provide additional constraints or formatting beyond the schema.

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 records a typed, directed relationship between two story entities in the project story graph and returns the stored edge with an id. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that this builds the knowledge graph queried by find_relationships, character_network, and discover_connections.

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 explicitly says to use this to build the knowledge graph for subsequent querying tools, and mentions a prerequisite: an open project with the relationship engine initialized. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly list when not to use alternatives.

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