manage_issue_relation

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'add or remove.' It adds specific relation types and the single-relation scope, but does not elaborate on irreversible removal or other behavioral nuances. This adds some value beyond annotations without fully disclosing consequences.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the core action and relation types. No wasted words; it is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is a destructive write operation with 7 parameters and clear potential for misuse (e.g., removing relations permanently). The sparse one-liner fails to provide sufficient context regarding relation direction, idempotency behavior, or error conditions, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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 schema covers 57% of parameters, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented ones. It does not clarify the roles of source_issue_id versus target_issue_id in the relation, nor explain the idempotency_key or agent_session_handle. The assertion 'one relation' implies a single pair, but key parameter semantics are left ambiguous.

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 explicitly states 'Add or remove one blocks, related_to, or duplicates relation,' which clearly identifies the verb (add/remove), the resource (issue relations), and the specific relation types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_issue_graph (read-only) and update_issue (broader updates).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It is a bare functional statement with no usage context.

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