clickup_task_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the bidirectional nature of the link ('Both tasks show the other in their 'Linked tasks' panel'), the non-blocking relationship type, and the return value ('Returns an empty object on success'). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first defines the purpose and relationship type, second explains the bidirectional visibility and removal tool, third contrasts with dependencies and states return value. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains the relationship type, bidirectional behavior, removal method, alternative for blocking relationships, and return value. It doesn't cover error cases or permissions, but given the schema completeness and clear behavioral description, it's mostly complete.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Create a bidirectional reference link between two tasks') and distinguishes it from siblings by contrasting with 'dependencies' and explicitly naming clickup_task_unlink and clickup_task_add_dep as alternatives. It precisely defines the resource (tasks) and relationship type (non-blocking 'see also').

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for a non-blocking 'see also' relationship'), when not to use it ('unlike dependencies'), and names specific alternatives (clickup_task_unlink for removal, clickup_task_add_dep for blocking relationships). This gives clear context for tool selection.

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