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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the (project_id, feature_id) uniqueness rule, the concrete 409 failure on duplicate, and the required write scope. It stops short of describing whether the link is reversible or how the created record is returned.

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, no filler; the action is front-loaded and the constraint/error and scope follow. Every clause carries information.

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 non-idempotent create-link mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key risk (duplicate 409) and the auth requirement (write scope). It is nearly complete; a note on whether duplicates can be remediated via update/delete would close the remaining gap.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents project_id, feature_id, and notes with formats. The description adds the pair-level uniqueness relationship, which is slightly beyond the per-field schema, but not enough to exceed the baseline meaningfully.

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 ('Link') plus both resources ('project' and 'infrastructure feature'), and the uniqueness constraint on the pair. An agent can distinguish this from the many sibling creators (create_project_asset, create_project_system, create_infrastructure_asset) because it is explicitly a join/link operation.

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 verb and the resource naming in the name/description, but it never says when to use this versus alternatives such as create_project_asset or update_project_infrastructure_asset, and gives no preconditions beyond the scope requirement. Minimum-viable guidance only.

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