rel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that removal is a supported mutation and hints at a textual relation grammar, but it omits the two-step preview/confirmation flow that the schema's 'cf' parameter implies, which is important behavior for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with the action list before the grammar hint; nothing is padded. The final clause about reading the type from the id is slightly cryptic but still earns its place as a parsing hint.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action space but leaves the confirmation-code workflow, what a listing returns, and permission prerequisites to the schema. It is adequate but does not fully carry the load the annotations leave open.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a small amount of extra meaning by explaining that the relation type is parsed from the id string ('#12 bloqueia #15') and clarifying that 'precede' means the target starts only after the source.

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 names a specific resource (relações/dependências entre work packages) and the exact operations supported (listar, criar, remover), plus the relation families involved (bloqueia, precede, requer, relaciona). That is enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like ls/new/rm, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through the enumerated actions; the description does not say when to prefer this tool over a generic link/update tool, nor does it state preconditions such as needing a prior listing to obtain the relation id for removal. Guidance exists but must be inferred.

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