create_issue_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the important side effect that precedes/follows relationships trigger Redmine to reschedule the following issue, pushing its start date forward. This is a significant, non-obvious behavior that is clearly disclosed.

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 and well-structured, with an Args list and a Warning section. Every sentence provides useful information, with no filler. The warning is placed prominently and adds critical context without bloat.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers the core behavior, all parameter meanings, and the critical edge case of date-driven rescheduling. The output schema handles return value documentation, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, but the description compensates fully by listing every parameter with meaningful semantics: issue_id as source, target_issue_id as target, relation_type with all allowed values and the delay parameter explained as gap in days and restricted to precedes/follows. This adds significant value 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 begins with a clear, specific statement: 'Create a relation between two issues.' This identifies the action and resource, and the sibling tools (list_issue_relations, delete_issue_relation) make it obvious this is the create operation, distinguishing it from related tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: warns that 'precedes' and 'follows' are date-driven and cause rescheduling, and explicitly recommends using 'relates' when only linking without affecting dates. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction for the relation_type parameter.

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