kaiten_add_planned_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the predecessor/successor direction and the planned-date prerequisite. However, it does not mention what happens if the prerequisite is unmet, whether duplicate relations are prevented, or what the API returns on success.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key semantic detail and prerequisite are stated efficiently.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema, the description covers the operation, direction, and critical precondition. It could add expected return behavior or duplicate-handling details, but these are not essential for selecting and correctly invoking the tool.

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 already provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions for card_id, target_card_id, and type. The description mostly restates the source/successor roles rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 ('Create') and identifies the resource ('planned relation') and the target context ('Timeline/Gantt'). It clearly defines source as predecessor and target as successor, which distinguishes it from the sibling update and remove planned-relation tools.

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 clear context: creating a successor link between two cards on Timeline/Gantt, with an important prerequisite that both cards have planned_start and planned_end dates. It does not explicitly name alternatives like kaiten_update_planned_relation or kaiten_remove_planned_relation, but the create framing makes the intended use unambiguous.

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