vikunja_task_relations

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects (e.g., whether unrelating is destructive), permissions required, or rate limits. It only lists operations without clarifying behavioral implications.

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 brief (one sentence). While it is concise, it sacrifices necessary detail. It adequately front-loads the purpose but omits important structural elements.

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 lack of output schema, no annotations, and the complexity of task relationships (multiple relation types), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to list relations, what response to expect, or how to properly use the relationship kinds.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only names operations (relate, unrelate, relations) without explaining how parameters like 'otherTaskId' or 'relationKind' should be used. The meaning of the 'relationKind' enum values is not clarified.

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 uses specific verbs and resource: 'Manage task relationships: relate tasks, unrelate tasks, list relations'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like vikunja_task_assignees or vikunja_task_comments by explicitly naming the domain of task relationships.

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 tool vs. alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The description lacks usage context entirely.

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