Link tasks

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as permission requirements or side effects. Not contradictory, but adds minimal value.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Every word serves a purpose, clearly stating action and giving a relatable example.

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?

Covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return values, error cases, or post-conditions. With 3 required params and no output schema, the description could be more informative.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only indirectly hints at 'linkedIssue' via the example, but does not clarify the role of 'ticket' or 'project' or provide syntax or formatting for any parameter.

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 ('set') and resource ('linked issue on a task') with a clear example (link a bug to the feature it affects). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'link_customer_ticket' which targets customers, not tasks.

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?

Provides a concrete example scenario (linking a bug to a feature) that clarifies when to use the tool. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools beyond the sibling list.

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