clickup_add_task_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key behavioral trait — the association is bidirectional and non-blocking — which is the main semantic ambiguity for a link operation. However, it says nothing about idempotency, what happens when the link already exists, permission requirements, or what the call returns, so a mutation tool remains under-described on side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the definition of the operation front-loaded ahead of the disambiguation note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, effect, and the sibling alternative well enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is post-call behavior — whether an existing link errors or is a no-op, and what comes back — which an agent would still have to discover.

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 task_id, links_to, and workspace_id are all fully documented in the schema, including custom-ID support and the multi-workspace caveat. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Link two tasks together") and immediately qualifies the relationship type ("bidirectional association with no ordering or blocking"). This clearly separates it from the dependency sibling without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: "For blocking/dependency relationships, use add_task_dependency instead." An agent can route between the two link-style tools with no inference.

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