create_issue_relation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that creating a relation automatically creates the inverse relation visible on the other issue, which is key behavioral information beyond the schema. This is clear and accurate.

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?

Extremely concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy.

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 4 parameters (2 required) and no schema descriptions, the description only covers one parameter (type) thoroughly. Workspace and the ID parameters are not elaborated. An output schema exists but return value is not described. The description feels incomplete for a creation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the type parameter in detail (allowed values and meanings), but does not clarify issue_id, related_issue_id (presumably identifiers), or workspace. The description adds partial semantic value.

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 'Create a relation between two issues,' specifying the verb (create) and resource (issue relation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issue_relations and delete_issue_relation.

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?

It explains the type parameter and its effect (automatic inverse relation), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_issue_relations, or exclude cases. Some guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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