task_add_link

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: nothing about duplicate links, ordering, permissions or whether 'actor' identifies the requester. It does clarify that the ref may be plain text rather than a well-formed URL, which is a useful behavioral nuance, but that is the only such disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, and the kind examples are packed into a single clause. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition is too thin: it never explains the task identifier or actor semantics, nor what happens on success or failure.

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 0%, yet the description only explains two of four parameters: 'ref' as the URL/plain-text payload and 'kind' with concrete example values (valuable since the schema defines no enum). The required 'id' (presumably task id) and required 'actor' are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

"Attach a link (URL or plain text) to a task" gives a specific verb and resource plus the target entity, which separates it from task_create and task_update. It does not explicitly name a sibling it should be preferred over, so it falls short of 5.

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 only implies usage from the verb 'attach'; there is no statement of when to use this versus task_update (which might already handle links), no prerequisites, and no mention of when-not to use it.

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