create_relations

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it requires active voice, lists canonical relation types, and warns that non-standard types are accepted but return a warning. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) without contradicting them.

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 three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists canonical types, and the third warns about non-standard types. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, valid relation types, and warning behavior. It could be more explicit about when to use the tool versus alternatives, but it is reasonably complete for the task.

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?

The schema already describes the 'relations' parameter as 'List of dicts with keys: from, to, relationType,' so coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the active voice requirement, enumerating canonical types, and noting the warning for non-standard types, which enriches parameter understanding 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's function: 'Create multiple new relations between entities.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_entities (which creates entities) and delete_relations (which removes relations).

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 for creating relations and provides canonical relation types, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or references to other tools, so guidance is present but not fully spelled out.

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