link_task_contact

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate these. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error behavior, return value), but also does not contradict annotations. This is adequate given the 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 description is a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word adds value: 'Link', 'existing', 'contact', 'task'.

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 simple parameter set (2 UUIDs), no output schema, and annotations providing safety guarantees, the description is mostly complete. It explicitly says 'existing', which hints at preconditions. However, it could be slightly more explicit about behavior when the link already exists (though idempotentHint implies it's safe).

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%, with each parameter having a clear description ('Task UUID', 'Contact UUID'). The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline expectation for high coverage.

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 ('Link'), the resources ('contact', 'task'), and specifies that they are 'existing'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'unlink_task_contact' and provides a precise purpose.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, when not to use it, or any alternatives (e.g., linking via other tools). The decision to use this tool is left entirely to the agent.

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