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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the side effect that moving a relation away from dependencies/blockedTasks unblocks the waiting task and triggers notifications, matching web-app behavior. Auth requirements and rate limits remain unstated, so it is not a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with a semicolon, front-loaded with the core purpose before the addressing detail and the unblock side effect. Efficient, though the middle clause about addressing is slightly compressed for a first-time reader.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no destructive flag, the description covers the mutation's purpose, how the target relation is addressed, and the notable unblocking/notification side effect. Minor gaps (permission needs, what the response returns, behavior when neither role nor desc actually changes) remain.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the relation is identified by the composite of key, otherKey and the *current* role (as seen in the task's relations), which clarifies why role is required even when newRole is supplied.

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 (changes) and resource (role or explanation of a task relation), and explicitly contrasts with the delete-and-recreate path used by sibling tools task_relation_delete/task_relation_create. An agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the intended usage pattern ('instead of deleting and recreating it') and the identifying triple (key, otherKey, current role), which is exactly what an agent needs to invoke it rather than delete+create. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools or stating when the tool should NOT be used.

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