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

Annotations already declare it non-readonly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the fact that status/notes change, with no mention of side effects, whether status transitions trigger anything, or what a lost-backlink task even is beyond the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it uses its brevity at the cost of the detail the schema lacks.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent lacks enough to know the effect of the update or the role of the required identifiers.

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% across 6 parameters, yet the description only gestures at 'status' and 'notes' (resolutionNotes). The four required identifiers (projectId, siteId, taskId) and assigneeUserId are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the 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 (change) and a well-scoped resource (a task opened for a lost backlink), plus the mutable fields (status, notes). This distinguishes it from siblings like close_backlink or list_backlinks, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. Given the dense sibling set (close_backlink, check_backlink, add_backlink, task-related tools), the agent gets no help deciding between them.

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