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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It mentions 'persisted work_id' indicating a write operation and 'emits process.work_linked' for event emission. This provides some behavioral transparency, but it omits details like idempotency, failure modes, permission requirements, or what happens if the link already exists. Given the absence of annotations, a 3 is appropriate – it offers minimal but non-misleading behavioral info.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and key effects. It front-loads the verb and resources, with zero filler. Every word delivers information, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (linking two entities) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and outcome adequately. While it doesn't detail edge-case behavior like idempotency or duplicate links, the operation is straightforward and the output schema likely provides return details. Minor gaps exist but are not critical for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a clear description in the input schema (run_id as 'Process run UUID', work_id as 'Work item UUID to hang off this run', agent attribution). The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Link a work item to a Process run'. It names the two resources involved and the resulting effect (persisted work_id, event emitted). This distinguishes it from the sibling process_run_unlink_work without confusion and avoids any tautology.

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?

The description implies the use case (when you need to associate a work item with a run) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions. The sibling unlink tool is never referenced, and no guidance is given on when not to use this tool or prerequisites. Adequate but lacks proactive routing.

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