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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds a valuable authorization constraint (managing both endpoint teams), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what makes the update destructive or what happens to existing endpoint data, so the added context is modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifies the action, the resource, and the authorization condition with no wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 7-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose and permission requirements, and annotations carry the safety profile. It omits what fields are updatable and the destructive implications, leaving some gaps for a complex update operation.

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 86%, so the schema already documents the enum values (type, state) and the node-id replacements. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb and resource: updating a process-to-process link in the Clarity landscape. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like createClarityProcessLink, deleteClarityProcessLink, and updateClarityProcess, though it does not name those alternatives directly.

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 a concrete precondition for use, 'when the caller can manage both endpoint teams,' which tells the agent when it may call this tool. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear.

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