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

Annotations declare non-readOnly and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds nothing about whether a link is reversible, what happens if the link already exists, or required permissions. Given destructiveHint, the silence on reversibility is a notable 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?

One efficient sentence covering both relation kinds and directionality. Minimal but not under-specified for the core action.

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?

No output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, so the main missing pieces are return behavior and permission/error context for a destructive operation. Adequate but clearly leaving gaps for a mutating tool.

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 explains the 'kind' enum semantics ('blocks' from->to versus 'relates' bidirectional) but says nothing about fromCardId/toCardId formats or constraints. Partial compensation for a major coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (relates) and resource (two tasks), and explains the two relation kinds with directionality. Sibling unlink_tasks exists but is not named, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring the inverse.

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?

No guidance on when to link vs not, no mention of the unlink counterpart, and no prerequisites. The 'same board' constraint is the only usage signal, delivered as a scoping note rather than guidance.

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