add_relation

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description must contribute most of the behavioral picture. It does add one meaningful trait — that the relation is written on both issues — but says nothing about permissions, whether re-adding an existing relation errors or is idempotent, or what happens if the two issues are in different workspaces.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the bidirectionality note is placed where it is most useful. It borders on under-specified rather than verbose, which is a different problem than wordiness.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the core action adequately. It leaves gaps around duplicate handling, cross-workspace constraints, and required permissions that an agent would want before invoking it against real issues.

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 67%, so the schema already explains 'identifier' (Issue id) and 'relatedTo' (Related issue id). The description's 'two issues' loosely confirms those roles but adds no format, id-prefix, or workspace-matching guidance for the undocumented 'workspace' parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('two issues as related'), and the parenthetical '(bidirectional)' clarifies the effect in a way the title alone does not. It plausibly distinguishes this from a directional 'add_blocked_by' sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. both issues resolving in the same workspace), and no mention of alternatives such as a blocked-by relation or remove_relation for undoing it. The use case is only implied by the phrase 'as related'.

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