add_task_reference

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It leads with 'WRITE' to signal a mutating operation and describes the idempotent-ish behavior of re-adding the same URL. It does not mention permissions or reversibility, but it clearly states what will happen on repeated calls, which is the most operationally relevant behavioral detail.

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 short sentences and front-loads the most important behavioral signal ('WRITE'). It wastes no words: action, resource, destination, usage boundaries, and update behavior are all present. The structure is easy to scan and understand.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to select and invoke it correctly. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, which sibling should be used instead, and what happens on duplicate URLs. The remaining details, such as exact return payload, are not necessary for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% property description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the meaning of url and implicitly explains title and desc by describing what gets updated on duplicate URLs. However, projectId, taskId, and agent are left to inference, leaving some parameter semantics under-specified.

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 identifies the exact action with the verb 'adds' and specifies the resource being added: an external URL or reference note. It also names the destination ('References' section) and explicitly differentiates the tool from the sibling add_task_link, making the purpose immediately distinguishable from nearby tools.

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?

It gives an explicit usage rule: 'Use this for links and supporting notes; use add_task_link for relationships to other active tasks.' The description also calls out the duplicate-url behavior, which is important invocation guidance. An agent can confidently choose between this tool and add_task_link without opening the schema.

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