link_task_to_doc

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the side effect of writing to document frontmatter (upsert) and that it does not create a task. It also explains the downstream effect on sync_doc_progress. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences in a compact structure, front-loaded with the core action, followed by mechanism and exclusion. No wasted words.

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 covers purpose, side effects, and relationship to sync_doc_progress, and an output schema exists. It does not explicitly state prerequisites like existence of the task/document, but 'existing' implies they must already exist.

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 has no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that task_id is recorded in frontmatter and that doc_path refers to the target document, but does not detail formats or constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the tool links an existing task to an existing work request document, explains the mechanism (recording task_id/task_url in frontmatter) and explicitly notes it does not create a new task, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 provides context that after linking, sync_doc_progress/hook will sync progress, implying this tool is a prerequisite. It also explicitly excludes creation of new tasks, but does not name alternative tools or give when-not conditions beyond that.

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