Add Task Link

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing the mutation profile. The description adds the 'bidirectional' behavioral trait, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing links, idempotency behavior (beyond the annotation), or prerequisites for the tasks. It adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive 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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It immediately states the core operation and key characteristics, making it highly efficient and well front-loaded.

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?

Despite the simplicity of the operation, the description omits explanations for optional parameters, output behavior, and explicit comparisons with alternatives. Given no output schema and sparse annotations, an agent would struggle to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 only implies that task_id and related_task_id correspond to the two tasks, but it doesn't explain the meaning of workspace_id or custom_task_ids, nor their formats or behaviors. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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 specifies the action (Create), resource (ClickUp Task Link), and key attributes (bidirectional, between two different Tasks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_task_link and add_dependency, which serve different linking purposes.

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 implies usage—whenever a bidirectional link between tasks is needed—and the sibling context makes the alternative clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention add_dependency as the directional alternative, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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