addLink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a meaningful precondition: interfaces must not already be in use, and it tells the agent where to verify this. It does not explain failure behavior if the precondition is violated, but it is still well above the minimum.

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 extremely compact: two sentences, both useful, no filler. The precondition is front-loaded and the verification guidance is given right after.

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?

The description is sufficient for a moderate-complexity mutation tool with no output schema. It gives the endpoint names, interface precondition, and verification path. It does not describe failure behavior or mention any state changes beyond creating the link, but these are minor gaps.

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?

The schema already describes linkType and interface structure, and the description adds important extra semantics by tying interface validity to in_use=false in getNetwork output. This meaningfully supplements the parameter information beyond the raw 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Connect two devices with a cable.' This makes the tool's function immediately obvious and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like addDevice and removeLink.

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 provides a clear precondition: both interfaces must be free, and it explains how to verify that using getNetwork. It also tells the agent to call getNetwork first if unsure, which is explicit usage guidance.

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