create_card_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the direction of the link (card_id shows the link, linked_card_id is linked to) but does not state any side effects, permissions, idempotency, or constraints (e.g., self-linking, duplicates). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential aspects: what it does and what each parameter means. However, the lack of behavioral disclosure (side effects, prerequisites) slightly reduces completeness.

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 the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: card_id is the card that shows the link, and linked_card_id is the card it links to. This provides clear meaning beyond the raw field names and integer types.

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 a specific action ('Create a Related Card link') and a specific resource ('between two cards'). It explicitly names the Zube 'Related cards' feature, distinguishing it from other card-related tools like create_card or update_card.

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 clear context: this tool is for creating a related card link between two cards. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous given the sibling tools, making the appropriate usage obvious.

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