ado_workitems_link

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

Annotations already flag this as a mutating tool (readOnlyHint=false), so the description adds value by disclosing the required 'vso.work_write' PAT scope and the board-nesting effect of the 'parent' link. It does not contradict the annotations; instead, it enriches the behavioral context with operational details.

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: it states the purpose, gives a typical scenario, lists the alternative link types, and notes the scope requirement — all in three sentences. There is no redundant wording, and the most important information (linking action) is placed first.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, all well-documented in schema) and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: core action, typical usage, all link type variants, and the PAT scope prerequisite. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

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?

All parameters are already described in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds a concrete example (fromId=Task, toId=Feature) and clarifies that linkType is from fromId's perspective, including what 'parent' means. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions and helps the agent avoid direction mistakes.

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 'Link' and the resource 'two work items', and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like unlink by describing the link creation action. It lists all supported link types and a typical use case, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

It provides a concrete typical use (setting a Feature as parent of a Task) and enumerates the alternate link types, which helps an agent decide when to call this tool. The prerequisite PAT scope is also stated. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'unlink' tool, though the name and context make the distinction clear.

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