Create issue relation

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: directional relation, automatic inverse, duplicate prevention, and error handling (Redmine rejects certain relations and passes messages verbatim). Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description aligns with this.

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 dense but well-structured: starts with purpose, then directionality, warnings, parameter specifics, and error handling. Every sentence adds value, though slightly long. Front-loaded with the most important usage guidance.

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 usage, behavior, parameter details, and error handling comprehensively. However, lacks explicit description of the success response (the created relation object). Given no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall very complete for a create tool.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: details each relation_type enum value, explains delay applicability only to precedes/follows, and provides an example. This helps the agent understand parameter usage clearly.

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 creates a typed relation between two issues, including an example and explanation of directionality. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redmine_list_issue_relations and redmine_delete_issue_relation by explicitly mentioning reading and deleting 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (link issues for planning), when-not-to-use (do not call again with swapped ids to avoid duplicates), and suggests alternatives (read existing links first with redmine_list_issue_relations, undo with redmine_delete_issue_relation). Also advises reading error messages instead of retrying.

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