add_task_relationship

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

The description provides only a high-level action without any detail on side effects, idempotency, relationship type constraints, or whether existing relationships are affected. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is easy to read. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices informational depth for brevity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what constitutes a relationship (e.g., allowed types) and what the return value or effects are. It does neither, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly, especially when the 'type' field is a free-form string.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters (task_id and relationships), so the description does not need to explain them. However, the description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (add) and resource (relationship between two ClickUp tasks). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like link_tasks or add_task_dependency, leaving ambiguity about the specific type of relationship.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a single sentence with no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or which scenarios call for this tool instead of add_task_dependency or link_tasks.

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