redmine_issue_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a mutation via POST but does not state side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or return format. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being almost minimal, and it does not front-load any important usage constraints. It earns a middle score because brevity is appropriate, but substance is lacking.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter, a mutation behavior, and no output schema, so the description needs to explain more about the relation types, constraints, and response. The current description only states the endpoint and a generic action, leaving the agent without enough information to call the tool correctly.

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 0% and the description adds no information about parameters. The nested 'relation' object with required fields 'issue_to_id' and 'relation_type' is only in the schema, and the description does not clarify their meaning, accepted values, or how they relate to the action. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 action: 'Add a relation between issues' with the specific endpoint POST /issues/:id/relations.json. This is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like redmine_issue_remove_relation or redmine_issue_relations_list, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as removing a relation or listing relations. No context is given about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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