relate_task

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses that this is a mutating operation, that a completed task is refused, and that the return value is routedTo: 'related' | 'references'. It does not document side effects or failure behavior in detail, but it is meaningfully transparent for a small tool.

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 with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, the usage guidance is placed centrally, and the return value is stated at the end. Every sentence provides usable information.

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?

The description explains routing logic and the return value, but with seven parameters, four required, and no schema descriptions, a tool's wording is not enough. Important invocation details like project/task ID semantics and what type values mean are left out.

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 0%, but the description does not compensate for the parameters. It does not explain sourceProjectId, sourceTaskId, targetProjectId, targetTaskId, desc, or agent, and only contributes indirect meaning to type ('typed link', related). An agent cannot confidently map the required IDs or description field from the text alone.

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 states a specific behavior: auto-routing a relevant target into the appropriate section based on whether it is an active task, a note, or a completed task. It clearly differentiates from manual sibling tools like add_task_link and add_task_reference by emphasizing that no section choice is needed. The 'WRITE.' prefix also makes the action direction 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?

It explicitly says to 'Prefer this when you just know a target is relevant and do not want to choose the section yourself,' which gives a concrete trigger condition. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when not to use it, but the context makes the intent understandable.

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