Link files to a task or a note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose downstream behavior well (todox warns when a linked file changes; get_file_context can resolve path back to task/note), which is genuinely useful context. However it says nothing about whether re-linking a path duplicates or replaces an existing link, what happens on an unknown task_id, or idempotency — real gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 verb, resource, and exclusive target selection are front-loaded in the first clause, and the total length is reasonable. The em-dash-heavy single sentence with asides ('wherever that lives', 'a claude.ai artifact, say') is slightly run-on and slows parsing, but no clause is pure 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 50% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose and downstream effects but omits the return shape, failure modes, and re-link/duplicate semantics. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what happens to pre-existing links or how errors surface.

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 only 50% (task_id and paths are undocumented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does explain the task_id/context_id either-or relationship and the acceptable forms of 'path', but the per-item 'note' sub-field and the 'model' parameter are never explained in either place, leaving half the surface opaque.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Attach file paths to a task (task_id) or a note (context_id)') and immediately delimits the two mutually exclusive targets. It also names the inverse sibling (get_file_context), so an agent can distinguish this tool from lookups in the same family without opening any schema.

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 'one or the other' constraint on task_id vs context_id is an explicit usage rule, and it clarifies that out-of-repo paths and URLs are in scope. It never states when to use this instead of a sibling such as unlink_file or when linking is inappropriate (e.g., non-existent paths), so it stops short of true when/when-not guidance.

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