link_task_to_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a mutation ('Add') but does not indicate whether existing links are preserved or replaced, whether the task is validated, what permissions are needed, or what the success/failure response looks like.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the example is placed directly after the action to clarify the required format.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequately complete on inputs. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about the expected side effects or return value, especially since this is a mutating operation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by giving a concrete org-mode link example for task_link, clarifying the expected string format beyond the schema's short description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a task link to a project's Related Tasks section.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings because no other tool mentions linking tasks to projects or Related Tasks. The example org-mode link further reinforces the intended operation.

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 implies the use case: an agent should use this when a task link needs to be added to a project's Related Tasks section. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like create_task or update_task, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites such as the task needing to exist.

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