add_task_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully declares this as a WRITE operation, explains forward/dangling-link behavior, and connects to `resolve_task_links`. However, it does not disclose duplicate-link behavior, whether links are bidirectional, failure behavior when `allowMissing` is false, or any side effects beyond creating the link.

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 three tight sentences, front-loads the write action, and adds substantive context about forward links and resolution. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 mutating tool with 8 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough. It leaves open important operational questions such as duplicate links, missing-target behavior when `allowMissing` is false, and what a successful response looks like.

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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameters. It clarifies `allowMissing` forward-link semantics but does not explain the relationship between `sourceProjectId`/`sourceTaskId` and `targetProjectId`/`targetTaskId`, nor does it elaborate on the `type` enum values beyond a general grouping.

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?

Clearly identifies a write operation that adds a typed relationship from one task to another, and summarizes the kinds of relationship types supported. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like `relate_task` or `add_task_reference`, but the core action and resource are clear.

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 gives a specific conditional use case for `allowMissing` and points to `resolve_task_links`, but it does not explain when to choose this tool instead of sibling relation/reference tools. No exclusions, alternatives, or when-not-to-use guidance are provided.

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