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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint not in the annotations: the required project_buildings:write scope. It stops short of explaining duplicate-link behavior or response, leaving most disclosure to structured fields.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero padding. Purpose first, prerequisite second — no wasted tokens.

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 two-ID link operation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose and auth scope adequately. A note on the effect of re-linking an already-linked building/project would make it 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 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource ('Link a building to a project'), and the verb 'link' usefully distinguishes this association operation from sibling create_building/create_project, which create new entities. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the distinction is inferable from the wording.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation (associate an existing building with an existing project) and a prerequisite scope is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance nor any reference to the related delete_project_building or get_project_building siblings.

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