add_task_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the link is bidirectional, whether existing links are overwritten or duplicated, whether linking requires permissions, or what happens if a cycle is created. For a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. However, extreme brevity here reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since the tool needs more context for a correct invocation.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, 50% param coverage, and only 2 of 4 params documented, the description leaves substantial unknowns. The agent cannot determine what response to expect, when team_id/custom_task_ids are required, or how this differs from dependency tools. Incomplete for a mutation tool with sibling ambiguity.

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 only 50%, with task_id and links_to documented but team_id and custom_task_ids left undescribed. The description adds no parameter information beyond 'Link two tasks together'. It doesn't explain the roles of team_id or custom_task_ids, leaving the agent guessing about their purpose

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 'Link two tasks together' identifies a verb+resource action, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like remove_task_link and add_task_dependency. However, it doesn't clarify what linking means semantically (e.g., creating a relationship vs. dependency), leaving some ambiguity about whether this creates a simple relation or a dependency link.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_task_dependency, which likely overlaps in task-linking behavior. No when-to-use, prerequisites (e.g., team_id needed?), or exclusions are mentioned. The agent has no direction on choosing between link and dependency tools.

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