needfix_link_existing_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers three useful facts: an authorization requirement (manager-only), transactional semantics (atomic link), and a state precondition on the target task. It stops short of describing side effects on failure, reversibility, or what state changes occur, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the role and precondition stated first and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose and precondition adequately but leaves the third parameter and error/return behavior unexplained. For a state-mutating link operation, that is minimally viable rather than complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly conveys the two required ids (needfix_id, existing_task_id) but says nothing about the third parameter, integrated_commit, or the expected id formats, leaving a documented gap.

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 gives a specific verb (link) and resource (a NeedFix to an existing task), plus the qualifying state of the target (finished, accepted). This clearly distinguishes it from convert-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, keeping it short of a 5.

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 states a hard precondition (the task must be finished and accepted) and a role constraint (manager-only), which implies when it is applicable. However, it never contrasts this with the alternative path (e.g., converting a NeedFix when no task exists) or states when-not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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