Links an integration task ID back to a deep review row in Stage 3, so review records stay connected to the created task.
Stage 3 helper — link integration task id back to review row.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task id returned by task_create. | |
| deep_review_id | Yes | Target deep_review row id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.0Input schema / properties / task_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Task id returned by ``/api/projects/{project_id}/tasks``."New value: +"Task id returned by task_create."v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('link') but discloses nothing about side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for a write operation.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded after a brief stage label, making it easy to scan.
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 simple two-parameter tool, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral disclosure leaves it incomplete for an agent navigating many sibling tools.
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 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'link integration task id back to review row.' This is clear and not a tautology, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like ecosystem_link_debate_meeting or other linking tools beyond the resource name.
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 only usage context is 'Stage 3 helper,' which vaguely implies it belongs to a workflow stage but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to consider. An agent must infer its place among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.