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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds real behavioral context beyond the schema: relation is free text with a curated list of useful values, note carries the caller's reasoning, and empty versions link whole files rather than a specific version. It still doesn't say whether duplicate links error or how to undo one.

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?

Four tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by relation guidance and the version convention. Slightly duplicative of schema text, but nothing gratuitous.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key relation/note conventions, and the version-vs-whole-file choice. Remaining gaps (duplicate handling, return value, permission requirements beyond 'files you can read') are minor given the annotation safety profile.

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. The description reinforces relation (free text, suggested values) and the empty-version convention, but that information is largely already in the property descriptions, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 (record) and resource (a connection between two files) with scope: across workspaces, files you can read. An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling unlink_files and get_file_link without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use with a concrete example (old project's solution vs new project's requirement) and a readability precondition ('files you can read'). It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing at the sibling unlink_files/get_file_link for retrieval, so it is not a full 5.

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