add_relation

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

Annotations already indicate not read-only and not destructive. The description adds value by disclosing idempotency behavior ('idempotency_key prevents duplicate relations') which is beyond annotations.

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 are concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds essential information: action, example use case, and idempotency feature. No fluff.

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 (2 params, output schema present), the description covers the main action, a key use case, and idempotency. It could be more detailed on return values but is sufficient with sibling tools present.

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%, so description should compensate. It explains idempotency_key purpose and gives a subtask example for relation kind, but does not detail all relation fields beyond 'link two cards'.

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: 'Link two cards with a typed relation.' It uses a specific verb ('link') and resource ('cards'), and distinguishes from siblings like delete_relation and list_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?

The description provides a specific example ('Subtask = kind child from parent card') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or compare to other tools.

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