create_work_package_relation

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical non-obvious behavior: OpenProject stores only one canonical relation type per pair, silently rewrites certain requested types, and may swap from_id/to_id relative to the input. It also instructs the agent to read the actual type and IDs from the response rather than assume they match the request. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then provides dense, relevant detail about relation_type behavior. It is appropriately sized for a mutation with surprising canonicalization semantics, though the long run-on sentence about rewriting and swapping could be structured more readably.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important behavioral risk: canonical type rewriting and ID swapping. The schema already documents the confirm preview behavior, but the description omits usage guidance and does not explain the lag parameter, leaving minor gaps.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by enumerating the accepted relation_type values and explaining how work_package_id and related_to_work_package_id map to from_id/to_id, including the swap behavior. It does not explain the lag or description parameters, so there is still a gap, but the most consequential parameter semantics are covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a relation between work packages.' That clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as update_relation, delete_relation, or get_work_package_relations, so it falls short of the top score.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_relation or delete_relation. It also does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid creating a relation, or the preview/confirmation workflow described in the schema. Usage must be inferred from the verb alone.

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