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

Given no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions rejecting blocks cycles, which is a behavioral constraint. But it fails to mention other important traits like idempotency (whether linking an existing edge updates or errors), authentication (api_key), or any side effects.

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 consists of two short, focused sentences with no extraneous information. Every word contributes to the core purpose and a key constraint.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the primary action. However, it lacks parameter explanations and usage context, which is necessary for a complete understanding given the tool's complexity.

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%, yet the description only mentions edge types (blocks, relates, supersedes) without explaining each parameter's meaning. It does not describe api_key, from_task_id, or to_task_id, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance beyond the schema's type information.

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 it connects two tasks with specific edge types (blocks, relates, supersedes), and mentions rejection of cycles for 'blocks'. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like baton_task_create (creates tasks) or baton_task_graph (displays graph).

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 a usage hint by stating that cycles for 'blocks' are rejected, guiding against misuse. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like baton_task_create or baton_task_update.

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