update_relation

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: relation_type is canonicalized at write time, reverse pair members are rewritten to canonical types with from_id/to_id swapped, and the agent should read back the actual type and IDs rather than assume requested values persisted. This directly warns about surprising mutation side effects.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by focused canonicalization detail. The explanation is dense but each sentence earns its place; minor formatting improvements could make the reverse-pair list easier to scan.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral risk of relation_type rewriting and advises verifying the result. Annotations already declare the destructive/write profile, and the confirm preview workflow is documented in the schema, so the remaining gaps are minor.

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 25% (only confirm is documented), so the description must clarify parameters. It provides deep semantics for relation_type, the most ambiguous parameter, explaining the canonicalization and swapping behavior. It does not explain relation_id or description, but those are comparatively self-evident.

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 states a specific verb and resource: update the type or description of a relation. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_work_package_relation or delete_relation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It references create_work_package_relation only to explain canonicalization behavior, not to route the agent between tools. The implied use case (updating an existing relation) is obvious from the name, but no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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