resolve_task_links

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

The description is transparent that the tool is 'read-mostly' and writes 'only if a title changed', and it discloses the result format: which links resolved vs which are still missing. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden, and it covers the most important side effects. It omits permissions and concurrency behavior, but this is sufficient for a read-dominant, conditionally writing 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most important mental model ('Read-mostly'). Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: the operation, the return value, and the write condition. There is no filler or repeated schema 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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the condition under which writes occur, and the returned information about resolved vs missing links. The only notable gap is the meaning of the 'agent' parameter, which prevents perfect completeness, but a caller can generally infer the needed inputs from the task context.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description provides no guidance on any of the three parameters. projectId and taskId are inferable from their names in a task context, but 'agent' is undefined and the relationship among them is not explained. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 operation (back-resolving a task's forward links) and precisely explains what is done: refreshing placeholder titles to real titles. The phrase 'for each stored link whose target now exists' and 'returns which links resolved and which are still missing' clearly differentiates this from siblings like add_task_link or remove_task_link.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a task's forward links may point to targets that have since been created and placeholder titles need to be become real titles. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name substitute tools, but the write condition and resolution behavior provide enough context to select this over link-structure tools.

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