Link Person Alias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return value ('ok plus current handles') but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, effects of duplicate aliases, or required permissions. The mutation nature is implied but not detailed.

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 concise: four short sentences including the title. It uses markdown headers for structure. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, and return value. However, it omits details about the 'strength' parameter and potential error conditions. Given its moderate complexity, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing examples ('email, feishu_open_id, nickname'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters.

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 the action: 'Add an alias handle to a canonical person page.' The verb 'Add' and resource 'alias handle to a canonical person page' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_person_alias and list_person_handles.

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 explicit context: 'When to use: link a new identifier (email, feishu_open_id, nickname) to a person.' This guides the agent on correct usage. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools.

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