kanbn_add_relation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: the operation merges and preserves existing relations rather than replacing them. It doesn't cover error cases, duplicate handling, or return behavior, but the core mutation semantics are clear and honest.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The merge behavior is stated in a compact second sentence, and every clause adds meaningful information without 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?

For a simple additive relation tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is not addressing what happens on duplicate or invalid relations, or what the tool returns, but no output schema exists and the core calling context is complete.

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 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description adds a helpful example of the edge structure ({task, type}) and clarifies that taskId is the task being modified, but it does not materially extend the parameter explanations beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Add a relation edge'), the target resource ('to a task'), and provides a concrete example shape. The merge sentence also distinguishes it from sibling relation tools like kanbn_set_relations and kanbn_remove_relation, even though they aren't named explicitly.

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 merge statement ('existing relations are preserved and only the new edge is appended') implies the additive use case and signals this is not a replace-all operation. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with kanbn_set_relations or states when-not to use it, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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