kanbn_set_relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it discloses the key traits: replace-all semantics, empty array clears all relations, and 'authoritatively' signals destructive overwrite. This goes beyond the schema by emphasizing full-collection replacement rather than a simple update.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the clearing edge case and the replace-all reminder. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 modest complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description and schema together cover what it does, how it behaves, and when to use alternatives. The only minor omission is explicit mention of normalization or error conditions, but those are not necessary for correct selection and invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The relations parameter description adds important operational guidance—replaces the whole collection on edit and cross-references the merge alternatives—clarifying that the array must be complete. This additional context justifies a 4.

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—'replace a task's entire relations collection'—and immediately clarifies it is replace-all, distinguishing it from additive relation tools. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like kanbn_add_relation and kanbn_remove_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?

The main description says 'supply every desired edge,' implying full-set replacement, and the relations parameter description explicitly directs agents to use kanbn_add_relation / kanbn_remove_relation for merges. This gives a clear decision rule: use this tool for authoritative full replacement, use siblings for incremental edits.

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