aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_link_existing_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it flags this as a write ('USER WRITE'), discloses the confirm=True gate, describes server-side validation (task must exist, be finished and accepted; integrated_commit verified against the repo), and states what is persisted (task link plus audit event). It stops short of error/failure semantics or permission requirements, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with 'USER WRITE' and the action, followed by the discriminating alternative and the behavioral contract. Two sentences plus a clause, near-zero waste; slightly dense packing but nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the mutation gate, validation rules, and persistence side effects an agent needs before calling. Minor gap: no failure/error behavior or idempotency note for a write tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates the confirm requirement and the commit verification rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('link a NeedFix item to an existing finished, manager-accepted task in the same repository') with explicit preconditions on the target task. It also names the sibling it must not be confused with (aiworkhub_dashboard_needfix_convert_commit), so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the selection rule ('use this when an already-completed canonical task resolves the NeedFix item') and names the alternative plus its distinct condition (create a new task card). The two branches are mutually exclusive and clearly stated.

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