cos_task_link

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: 'forge auto-detected' and 'metadata only, never the id,' which clarifies the tool's effect without contradicting annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral constraints.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior. It could mention prerequisites but is otherwise complete for selecting and invoking this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by giving semantic meaning to 'ref' via example and clarifying it is an external_ref. The 'task_id' param is self-explanatory from its name, so overall parameter semantics are adequately conveyed.

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 specific action ('Set a task's optional external_ref') with a concrete example (github#42), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing 'metadata only, never the id.'

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Set a task's optional external_ref') and includes an exclusion ('never the id'), but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like cos_task_edit.

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