vk_put_tasks_6293a01ae4e2

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

The description discloses that it creates a relation, requires authentication, and explains parameter alias handling and top-level path/query fields. With no annotations, it carries the full burden, but it omits response format, duplicate-relation behavior, and error scenarios. It also states 'optional body field' while the schema marks body as required, a contradiction that reduces transparency.

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 sentence 'Create a new relation between two tasks' appears verbatim twice, and the description has some redundancy. It is front-loaded with purpose and not excessively long, but the repetition is wasteful.

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?

Covers purpose, permissions, auth, payload location, and parameter aliases. But with no output schema or annotations, it does not explain return values, error handling, or body fields, and the optional-vs-required discrepancy weakens completeness. It is adequate for a raw proxy but leaves notable 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), and the description adds useful info about aliases and top-level fields. However, it calls the body 'optional' when the schema requires it, does not describe the relation object's structure beyond pointing to docs, and the taskID aliases are just restated.

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 'Create a new relation between two tasks,' a specific verb+resource statement, and reinforces it with the exact endpoint 'PUT /tasks/{taskID}/relations'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings, even among the many vk_put_tasks variants, because the operation is unambiguous.

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?

It states permission requirements ('update permissions on the base task and at least read permissions on the other task') and notes that tasks do not need to be on the same project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but this context is sufficient for deciding when this raw endpoint is appropriate.

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