add_work_item_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important behaviors: the call is a dry-run by default (preview) and it only operates within the same project. It omits permissions, whether existing relations are de-duplicated, behavior when multiple related_work_item_ids are passed, and whether relations can be removed later.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the preview/create distinction front-loaded before the confirm instruction. Nothing to cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description should at minimum clarify direction semantics and multi-ID behavior; the confirm gate is the only fully covered piece.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains only 'confirm'; the direction semantics of the eight enum values (blocking vs blocked_by, start_before vs start_after), the role of project_id, and the plural semantics of related_work_item_ids are left unexplained. 'Reviewing the relation direction' gestures at the enum problem without resolving it.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('Preview or create') and resource ('same-project work-item relations'), which lets an agent separate this write path from the read-only sibling get_work_item_relations. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of 5.

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 second sentence encodes a concrete two-step workflow: call without confirm to preview, then set confirm=true after reviewing direction. That is real when-to-use guidance, but there is no mention of alternatives (e.g. get_work_item_relations for reading) or when not to use this tool.

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