card_set_relation

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It discloses two behaviors: default-prompt fallback when text is omitted, and storage-location selection for project relations based on both endpoints' shared state. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or reversibility of the 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The additional clauses add meaningful behavioral information without wasted words, though the storage-location phrasing is somewhat dense and ambiguous.

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?

With six parameters, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and minimal annotations, this description leaves major gaps. The behavior of enabled, baseline, scope, and the exact storage-selection rule are unclear, so an agent would likely need to guess or inspect other tools to use this correctly.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It only clarifies text and vaguely alludes to the two endpoints (from_id/to_id). Parameters like enabled, baseline, and scope remain entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb (更新/update) and a specific resource (参考关系/reference relation), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like card_relations and card_remove_relation. The main purpose is immediately understandable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the update verb makes the general use case clear. It does provide a conditional usage hint about omitting text to use the default prompt, which gives partial guidance.

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