add_issue_relation

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

Description states 'No-op if the relation already exists', implying idempotent behavior, but annotations have idempotentHint: false, creating a direct contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, zero wasted words, front-loaded with core action and followed by necessary details. Highly efficient.

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?

Covers relation types, cross-project usage, idempotency, and mentions no-op. No output schema but mutation tools often return minimal data; could mention success response but sufficient.

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 descriptions are minimal ('a string that will be trimmed'), but the description adds meaningful semantics: explains relationType enum values, targetIssue accepts cross-project identifiers, and clarifies source/target roles.

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?

Clearly states it adds a relation between two issues, lists three relation types with detailed explanations, and distinguishes from siblings like remove_issue_relation and list_issue_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?

Explicitly describes when to use each relation type and mentions cross-project identifiers and no-op behavior, providing clear context. Lacks explicit not-use guidance but differentiation from siblings is implicit.

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