redmine_add_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool honors a read-only flag and that the delay parameter is only meaningful for certain relation types. This gives good insight into behavior, though it omits details on failure modes or idempotency.

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 structured with clear parameter explanations and uses bullet-like formatting. It is slightly verbose due to the extensive listing of relation types, but every sentence adds necessary information.

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 an output schema, return values are covered. Parameters are thoroughly explained. However, common error conditions and authentication requirements are not mentioned, which would be helpful for completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description explains each parameter in depth: issue_id, target_issue_id, relation_type with a full list of valid values and aliases, and delay with its specific meaning for precedes/follows. This adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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 'Create a relation between two issues' and specifies the source issue, target issue, relation type, and delay. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_remove_relation.

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 context by mentioning that it honors REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY and that cross-project relations require a specific Redmine setting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives like redmine_set_parent_issue.

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