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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the (project_id, feature_id) pair must be unique and a duplicate returns 409, plus the required write scope. It does not describe the response body, but this is solid additional context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the constraint, error behavior, and auth requirement. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 three-parameter link-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key validation rule, the error code, and the required scope. Only the 'notes' field and any return info are unaddressed, which is minor.

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 already 100%, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds real semantic value by explaining the composite uniqueness constraint across project_id and feature_id, which the schema cannot express. The optional 'notes' parameter is not addressed, keeping it out of the top band.

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') and resource pairing ('a project to an infrastructure feature'), which is clear enough to distinguish this join-record tool from sibling creators like create_infrastructure_asset. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands just below the top band.

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 many sibling create_* tools (e.g. create_project_asset, create_infrastructure_asset). The uniqueness rule hints at its role, but that is inference, not stated usage guidance.

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