add_relation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the symmetric default, directional semantics for asymmetric kinds, permission needs, and the fact that tasks need not be in the same project. It stops short of describing edge cases such as duplicate relations or failure behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 compact yet information-dense, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, organizes the kinds into a list, then explains direction and access in a clear, structured way.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key inputs, valid values, directionality, permissions, and cross-project behavior. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but these are not essential for selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 fully explains the meaning of task_id versus other_task_id, lists all valid relation kinds, and states the default value for relation_kind. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Relate one task to another.' It identifies the resource, the default relation kind, and enumerates the supported relation kinds, making the tool's scope obvious and distinct from siblings like remove_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?

The description provides useful usage context: it explains defaults, which task is the base versus the other, the role of direction for asymmetric kinds, and access requirements. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the practical context is strong.

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