link_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the action but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the task is modified), permissions needed, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate links. This is insufficient for a tool that creates an association.

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 two sentences: the first defines the function, the second gives usage context. No redundant words, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides value.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is overly brief: it does not explain the return value (likely a link object), error conditions, or provide examples. Given the complexity, the description leaves significant gaps that an agent would need to infer or test.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's text ('Attach...') does not add significant meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. The enum values for 'kind' are listed in the schema but not expanded upon in the description. Overall, adequate but not additive.

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: 'Attach a branch, commit, pull request, or URL link to a task.' It specifies the verb 'attach' and the resource 'link to a task', and the types of links are listed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, add_comment, etc., which handle different actions.

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 a condition for use: 'Use this when work in a repo, PR, or external artifact should travel with the task.' This gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the sibling list offers that implicitly.

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