team_time_link_agent_chat

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value by disclosing the human-enabled coordination prerequisite and the ownership non-claim, which is the key ambiguity for this operation. It does not explain why the call is destructive (e.g., whether existing file/branch links are overwritten), leaving a gap against a destructive=true annotation.

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?

Three short sentences, all load-bearing: the operation first, then the prerequisite, then the ownership caveat. No filler and no repetition of schema details.

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 non-idempotent, destructive mutation with six undocumented parameters, the description covers intent and prerequisites but not effects: what happens if the run is already linked, whether prior file/branch declarations are replaced, or what the caller gets back. Adequate to invoke, not sufficient to predict consequences.

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%, so the description must compensate; it does partially by naming files, branch and checkpoint and clarifying that files are repository-relative. However taskId, runId and repository are never explained, and the constraints (max 50 files, 300 char paths, uuid format) come only from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: link the caller's own registered run to a task and declare files, branch and checkpoint. The closing line 'Linking does not claim task ownership' explicitly separates it from the sibling team_time_claim_task, which shares the same conceptual territory.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite ('Requires project coordination to be enabled by a human') and a clear exclusion ('does not claim task ownership'), which routes the agent away from claim_task. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly or describing what to do if coordination is disabled.

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