superpos_link_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (linking) and outcome (issue appears in track), but omits details like idempotency, permissions, or whether linking replaces existing links. For a mutation tool, this is minimal.

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 a single 17-word sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and effect. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words or filler.

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 (3 params, output schema exists) and lack of annotations, the description covers the basic function but misses contextual details like constraints (e.g., track must exist) or reversibility (sibling unlink_issue exists). Adequate for simple linking but not fully informative.

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 0%, so parameters have no descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond their names (e.g., track_slug, issue_id, hive_id). The agent gains no additional semantic meaning from the description.

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 action: 'Link an existing issue to a track' and the effect: 'shows up in the track's body of work.' It distinguishes from siblings like superpos_unlink_issue (reverse) and superpos_link_task_to_issue (links task to issue), making the tool's specific role clear.

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 implies usage (to associate an issue with a track) and sibling tools (unlink_issue, link_task_to_issue) provide contrast, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent can infer context but lacks explicit directives.

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