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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the description only needs to add context. It does add real value with the API-key scope `tasks:write` and the owner-vs-target direction, but says nothing about duplicate relationships, failure modes, or whether the type must exist beforehand.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The trailing auth-scope note is terse and useful rather than padding.

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?

Covers enough to invoke correctly: direction, type format, and auth scope. With no output schema, it should say what a successful call returns (e.g. the created relationship object) and what happens when the relationship already exists – both gaps keep it at minimum-viable rather than 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete meaning: `type` is a workspace-scoped relationship-type name with an example ('Blocking'), and `target` is a task key/identifier. It also reinforces the owner role of `ref`, which helps an agent orient the direction correctly.

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 ('Create a relationship from one task to another') and clarifies directionality, which is the non-obvious part of this operation. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools (pm_list_task_relationships, pm_delete_task_relationship), but the purpose is unambiguous against them.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites surfaced as usage advice. The mention that `type` is a workspace relationship-type name hints that a type must already exist, but this is left implicit rather than stated as a precondition.

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