attach_page_to_work_item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond 'link'. It does not explain idempotency behavior (if already linked), permissions, or effects. Minimal additional value.

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 concise with two clear sentences plus Args/Returns. No redundant text. Efficient, though could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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?

Given the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context (idempotency, error states) and prerequisites. Adequate for a simple operation but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters with trivial 'UUID of the project/work item/page' but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the names. Should clarify roles like 'project containing the work item'.

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 clearly states 'Link a page to a work item' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'detach_page_from_work_item' and 'list_work_item_pages'.

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 the basic purpose but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., 'detach_page_from_work_item'). It does not mention prerequisites or edge cases like whether linking is idempotent. Usage context is implied.

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