add_task_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a create (mutation) operation and explains the concept of references. However, it does not mention idempotency, duplicate behavior, or whether creating a reference overwrites existing ones, which would be valuable behavioral context. Still, the core action is clear and not misleading.

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 just two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. It contains no redundant phrases and every clause adds information. The parentheses list of example types is useful and compact.

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 a simple schema with no nested objects and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the operation, the relationship types, and the usage intent. It could be marginally more complete by noting whether the reference is bidirectional or directional, but for a reference-creation tool in the context of sibling tools for removal and retrieval, this is sufficient.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema—it enumerates example types in parentheses, but the schema already provides the full enum. No additional parameter semantics, like the directionality of taskId vs referencedTaskId, are explained in the description. Thus, it does not exceed the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('reference between two tasks'), and explicitly lists example relationship types. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task (which creates a new task) and remove_task_reference/get_task_references.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to model task dependencies and relationships.' This provides clear context for usage. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings that the guidance is sufficient.

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