link_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the cascade behavior for governance refs ('cascade to the assembled pack','cascades automatically too'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing refs, or what happens to previously-linked refs. With zero annotations, more behavioral detail would be beneficial.

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 core action in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds valuable explanatory context without unnecessary padding. Efficient and well-organized, though the cascade explanation could arguably be tightened further.

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 tool has only 2 flat parameters and no enums, so complexity is moderate. An output schema exists, which relieves the need to document return values. The description covers the core purpose and the cascade side-effect, but gaps remain around ref string format, idempotency, and error conditions which matter for a wiring operation. Adequate but not fully 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, but it does so weakly. It mentions 'refs' can be component/repo/governance types and optionally include subtopic, and clarifies task_slug refers to a task. However, it doesn't specify the format of refs strings (e.g., 'component:slug:subtopic'), whether task_slug must be exact or accepts aliases, or what happens if a task doesn't exist.

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 ('Wire') and identifies the resource (refs of component/repo/governance, optionally with subtopic) being attached to a task. It distinguishes clearly from siblings like unlink_task or add_governance by stating the action of linking refs to a task. However, it could be more explicit about the exact modification being performed (adds refs to an existing task).

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 provides useful context about when subtopic-level refs are preferred ('keep packs focused') and explains governance cascade behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like add_external_ref (external vs internal refs) or suggest_task_links (suggestion vs direct wiring), nor does it state when one should NOT use this tool.

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