create_work_package_relation

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

Annotations are neutral (no readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint). The description adds that writes are immediate and duplicate validity is enforced by OpenProject, providing useful behavioral context beyond what annotations declare.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences. The first sentence states the action and examples, the second provides usage guidance and behavioral notes. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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 complexity (5 params, 3 required, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, usage prerequisites, and key behavior. It does not detail the return value or the lag/description parameters, but it is sufficient for an agent to use 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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the description adds value by illustrating the direction (from/to) and giving type examples. It does not mention the lag or description parameters, but the overall parameter semantics are enhanced.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a directed typed relation from one work package to another', with examples of types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_work_package (which creates work packages) and delete_work_package_relation (which deletes relations).

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 advises to 'verify both IDs and existing relations' before use, and notes that writes are immediate. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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