redmine_issue_relations

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as destructive nature of delete, required permissions, or side effects. It only names the actions without elaboration, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral understanding.

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 very short and front-loaded, stating the purpose in one sentence. While efficient, it could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.

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 presence of 8 parameters (including nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use parameters for each action, expected input structures, or return values, leaving significant gaps.

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 50%, but the tool description does not elaborate on any parameters beyond listing actions. Key parameters like 'relation' (nested object) and 'query' lack context, and the description adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 manages issue relations and lists three specific actions: list, create, delete. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_issues (manages issues) and redmine_api_request (generic).

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 lists actions but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use redmine_issues for issue management or redmine_api_request for custom requests. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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