Attach a structured link (spec, patch, runner, model, agent, commit, branch, fixes, or scope) to a sprint, task, or subtask so each item's context and dependencies stay traceable.
Attach a structured link (spec, patch, runner, model, agent, commit, branch, fixes, scope) to an item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Item id: sprint '1', task '1.2', subtask '1.2.3' | |
| kind | Yes | Link kind | |
| value | Yes | Link value (path, sha, name, ...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the write-with-idempotency, non-destructive profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when the same kind is attached twice (overwrite vs. duplicate), which is exactly the behavior the idempotent hint implies but doesn't explain.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly redundant with the schema enum, but it costs almost nothing and orients the agent immediately.
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?
A simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, so not much is required. Still missing: overwrite semantics for repeated kinds, and any gloss on the opaque enum values 'fixes' and 'scope', which an agent could easily misuse.
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 coverage is 100% with per-field descriptions and a full enum, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only restates the enum values, and gives no hint about ambiguous kinds such as 'fixes' or 'scope' or what value formats each expects.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Attach a structured link ... to an item', and it enumerates the link kinds inline. The verb 'attach' cleanly contrasts with the sibling tasks_unlink, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb 'attach' and the presence of tasks_unlink as a counterpart. There is no statement of when to use this versus tasks_edit or tasks_note, nor any prerequisite about the item needing to exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.