link_thought_to_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the link as 'soft bidirectional' but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or reversibility. Lacks details on whether it creates a persistent record or affects existing links. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of 13 words with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently. Every word is necessary.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the basic function. However, with no annotations, it falls short on behavioral context. It is moderately complete but could mention the effect on existing links or required permissions.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'reason' is optional, but this is already in the schema. Parameters are standard IDs without extra context.

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 the verb 'Create', the resource 'soft bidirectional link between a thought and a task', and the purpose 'for provenance tracking'. This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools that create entities (e.g., create_tree, create_task) or perform other operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context 'for provenance tracking' implies a specific use case, the description lacks when-not or alternative recommendations. Siblings do not include a similar linking tool, so usage is somewhat implied but not fully explicit.

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