attach_link

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

While annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds crucial behavioral context about authorization requirements and task ownership. It also clarifies the non-destructive nature implicitly. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action and examples. Each sentence provides distinct value: purpose, usage context, and constraints. No redundant information.

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, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and constraints. It provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'you produced' implies ownership of the URL), but this doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attach a link to a task') and gives concrete examples (pull request, document, dashboard). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning its use alongside add_result for external outputs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the output lives somewhere else') and names the alternative (add_result). Also provides a permission constraint ('Only tasks you hold, or unclaimed ones, can be changed'), offering clear context for usage.

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