ghl_object_update_note_relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description's added value is the 'notes.write' OAuth scope and the API version/source metadata, which is genuinely useful for auth planning. It does not, however, explain whether the body's 'add'/'remove' operations mutate the full relation set or append/delete incrementally — the key behavioral question for this tool.

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?

Short and front-loaded: name, endpoint, scopes — no filler. The first line is largely redundant with the title, but overall the text is tight and well ordered.

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?

With a fully described nested schema and detailed annotations, most of the burden is already covered, and an output schema is absent so return values need no explanation. Still, the description omits the one thing structured data can't convey: what the operation actually does to a note's record attachments and how add vs. remove behaves.

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 100% and the nested body/relations fields are described in schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing about parameter meaning — notably it never clarifies the 'type' field's 'add'/'remove' values, which is the single most consequential parameter.

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 restates the name ('Update Note Relations') plus the raw endpoint PUT /notes/{id}/relations, which does identify the resource and verb. However, it never explains in plain language what a 'note relation' is — i.e. attaching/detaching a note to records — so an agent must infer the operation from the path. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like ghl_object_update_note or ghl_object_update_note_attachments.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given siblings such as ghl_object_update_note, ghl_object_update_note_attachments and ghl_object_delete_note in the same family, the description should say when relation editing is the right call, but it says nothing.

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