create_work_item_relation

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

The annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond a restatement of the create action. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the relation is bidirectional), auth requirements, or open-world implications, providing no additional behavioral context.

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, succinct sentence that is easy to read and front-loaded with the key action. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content, though this dimension focuses on efficiency and structure, which are solid.

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?

Given the tool's six parameters, lack of output schema, and the presence of closely related sibling tools (links vs. relations), the description is severely under-specified. It omits return values, side effects, prerequisites, and any distinction between a 'relation' and a 'link', leaving significant gaps for a create operation.

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 only 33%, with four of six parameters lacking descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no parameter semantics whatsoever, failing to clarify the roles of project_id, work_item_id, external_id, or external_source, nor does it explain how relation_type values like 'blocked_by' or 'relates_to' are used.

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 ('Create a relation') and the target resource ('two work items'), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like create_work_item_link or list_work_item_relations, which also deal with work item relationships.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_work_item_link or remove_work_item_relation. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the user to infer appropriate usage.

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