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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world-closed mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required write scope, which annotations do not convey. It omits the notable behavioral consequence of idempotentHint=false, namely that repeated calls may produce duplicate links.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs before calling.

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?

A two-parameter junction tool with no output schema has modest requirements, and the scope prerequisite is a genuinely useful addition. But the non-idempotent hint implies duplicate-link behavior that the description never addresses, and there is no statement about preconditions on the referenced project and building.

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 100% and both parameters (project_id, building_id) are documented as required UUIDs in the schema, so the description need not restate them. It adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and both resources: 'Link a building to a project.' An agent can tell this associates an existing building with an existing project rather than creating either entity. It does not, however, distinguish itself from structurally similar junction tools in the sibling list such as create_project_site, create_project_location, or create_project_asset.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other association tools, and no note that both referenced entities must already exist. The only added sentence is a scope prerequisite, which is authorization information rather than usage context.

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