create-todo-linked-resource

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, but the description does not explain destructive implications (e.g., confirmation requirements). It adds context about the resource association but omits behavioral details like the need for user approval when the confirm gate is enabled.

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 moderately concise, front-loads the purpose, and includes a helpful tip. It could be trimmed slightly, but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and gives an example, but it does not mention return values (no output schema exists) or clarify parameters like confirm, includeHeaders, or excludeResponse. With 6 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value with an example body structure ('{ webUrl: 'https://...', applicationName: 'Mail', ...}'), clarifying parameter usage beyond schema definitions.

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 it creates a linkedResource to associate a task with an item in a partner application, with a concrete example. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create-todo-task or list-todo-linked-resources, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 example use cases (email association, during task creation) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. The usage context is implied but not systematically covered.

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