Attach Subtask

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains what idempotency concretely means here ('re-attaching the same pair returns success without creating a duplicate link') and discloses two non-obvious behaviors Kaiten silently tolerates: cycles and cross-board attaches. This is exactly the kind of operational warning an agent needs and cannot infer from annotations alone.

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?

Four sentences with zero redundancy: purpose first, disambiguation second, workflow third, behavioral warnings last. The idempotency note earns its place by expanding on the annotation rather than repeating it, and every sentence carries information the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 simple 2-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent link operation with informative annotations, the description covers purpose, gotchas, prerequisites, and verification. The only gap is the unspecified response shape (with no output schema), which is a minor omission given the operation's simplicity and fully documented parameters.

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% — both parameters are documented as 'Child card ID' and 'Parent card ID', so the schema carries the directionality. The description adds the domain meaning of 'child' (a real Kaiten card rather than a checklist item), which slightly augments the bare schema labels, but it contributes no per-parameter format or constraint details.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Link an existing child card to a parent card') that precisely names the operation. It then differentiates itself from the closest sibling by explicitly stating what it is NOT ('NOT a checklist item'), making confusion with kaiten_add_checklist_item impossible.

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 names the alternative tool explicitly and gives the selection condition ('for to-do items use kaiten_add_checklist_item'). It also prescribes the workflow: create the child via kaiten_create_card and verify via kaiten_list_subtasks, giving the agent a complete call sequence.

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