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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by stating the required permission ('Requires capabilities:write') and clarifying that the opportunity must already exist, which prevents an agent from assuming this creates entities.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the core action. Minor waste exists in 'Explicitly' and 'through the shared app command,' neither of which changes how the agent should invoke the tool.

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 simple link-mutation tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential action, permission requirement, and the 'existing' precondition. It does not mention edge cases such as linking an already-linked pair, but that is a minor gap given the structured metadata available.

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 100%, so all three parameters including idempotencyKey are documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the two linked IDs ('one existing Strategic Opportunity to a Capability') but does not add syntax, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb (links) and the exact resources (one existing Strategic Opportunity and a Capability), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like capability_unlink_opportunity, capability_link_change, and capability_link_work_item. The phrase 'shared app command' is vague and adds no discriminating meaning.

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 implies usage by saying the tool explicitly links an existing opportunity to a capability, but gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as capability_unlink_opportunity or when linking is inappropriate. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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