create-todo-linked-resource

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, aligning with the description's 'Create' action, so there is no contradiction. However, the description doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects beyond what the annotations already convey. It does add an example of the body structure, but that pertains to parameters rather than behavior. Since the annotation already indicates a destructive write, the description doesn't add significant behavioral context.

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 somewhat verbose and has redundancy. The main description and the tip share similar information (both explain linking a resource and provide body examples). It could be tightened without losing meaning. The core purpose is clear, but the extra example and tip repeat content, reducing conciseness.

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 create operation with a required body and path parameters, the description provides enough context: it explains what the tool does, gives an example body, and clarifies the association scenario. The required parameters are documented in the schema, and the description doesn't overlook any critical usage detail. The lack of an output schema is typical for create operations, so no additional return-value explanation is needed.

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 83%, meaning most parameters are described in the schema. The description adds a concrete example of the body object with fields like webUrl, applicationName, displayName, and externalId, giving a template that helps an agent construct the body. This enriches the schema descriptions and helps clarify expected values, especially for the nested body parameter.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a linkedResource object to associate a specified task with an item in a partner application.' It uses a specific verb (create), a specific resource (linkedResource), and clarifies the association intent. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list-todo-linked-resources and delete-todo-linked-resource.

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 contextual use cases, e.g., 'you can associate a task with an email item in Outlook that spurred the task,' and notes you can create a linkedResource during task creation. It also gives guidance on when to use it ('Use to link tasks to emails, files, or web pages for context'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the siblings are obvious alternatives that are not relevant here.

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