link_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the operation is 'MUTATING' and describes the underlying implementation (Parm.set(Parm)/setExpression()), plus notes that responses go through 'apply_response_cap'. However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or required permissions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds meaningful information (purpose, method, parameter format, response cap) without unnecessary elaboration.

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 only 3 parameters and no output schema, so the description provides the essential purpose, parameter format, and a note on response handling. However, the 'ctx' parameter is left unexplained, and return values/error behavior are not mentioned, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent to fully invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description explains the format for source and target ('node_path.parm_name') but does not explain 'ctx'. This partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves one parameter undefined.

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 tool's purpose: '建立 parm 之间的真实引用' (establish real references between parms). It specifies the method (Parm.set(Parm)/setExpression()) and distinguishes itself from alternatives by explicitly rejecting channel aliases ('不用 channel alias 冒充').

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 usage context by indicating this is for creating cross-parm references and advises against using channel aliases as a substitute. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., set_expression) or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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