Relate two Targetprocess cards by creating a specified relation type and direction. Prevents duplicate identical relations.
Relate two cards: relation Dependency, Blocker, Relation (default), Link or Duplicate (or any type on the instance). outbound (default): id → to (id is the master); inbound: to → id. An existing identical relation is left alone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| to | Yes | ||
| relation | No | ||
| direction | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is not read-only and can be destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the default relation type, the outbound vs inbound direction semantics, and especially the idempotent behavior that an existing identical relation is left alone.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and relation types, the second defines direction semantics, and the third clarifies idempotence. The information is dense but compact, with no filler.
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 write operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: required parameters, default values, accepted relation types, and direction behavior. It could additionally clarify what happens when a non-identical relation already exists, but given the annotations and sibling context, the description is reasonably complete.
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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It compensates thoroughly: it explains the 'relation' parameter's valid values, the default behavior for 'direction', and the semantic roles of 'id' and 'to' in both outbound and inbound cases. This is well beyond what the bare schema provides.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Relate two cards') and enumerates the supported relation types, making it immediately clear what operation is performed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_create_card and delete_relation, which clearly have different purposes.
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 explains how to use the tool (outbound/inbound direction, defaults, idempotence) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as write_update_card or delete_relation. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or when-not-to-use hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.