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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the one-home invariant, the refusal-with-error behavior on a second 'contains', and that 'reference' does not move the item. It stops short of describing return value or how position interacts with existing siblings.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the relation nuances. Dense but each sentence carries information; only the parenthetical definition of a bundle is arguably surplus.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invariants and error behavior. Missing details are minor: return shape and how explicit positions order against existing siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the same relation semantics and the position default. The description's relation explanation adds only marginal value beyond the schema, and position is not elaborated at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Link two items in a bundle') and clarifies the resulting structure ('placing the child under the parent'), even defining what a bundle is. It distinguishes the two relation modes clearly enough that an agent knows exactly what operation it is invoking.

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 explicit guidance on choosing between relation='contains' and relation='reference', including the consequence of each. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over siblings like muninn_bundle_edge_move or muninn_bundle_edge_remove, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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