batch_link_prototype

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action ('link multiple transitions') without addressing critical aspects such as atomicity (does the whole batch succeed or fail as one?), error handling, whether existing links are replaced, or what the response looks like. For a mutating batch operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence with an illustrative parenthetical, front-loaded with the core action. Zero wasted words.

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?

This is a batch operation with nested object parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description fails to explain batch-specific behaviors (rollback, partial success, response format) or how it relates to single-link tools. An agent would lack critical information for correct invocation and error handling.

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 reported at 100%, and the schema already defines the links array structure, enums, and descriptions for sourceId and destinationId. The description adds only the phrase 'Array of prototype links to establish,' which is minimal and provides no extra meaning beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Link'), a specific resource ('multiple prototype transitions'), and provides a concrete example ('wiring up an entire user journey'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tool set_prototype_interaction, which handles single transitions.

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 batch usage through the example but does not explicitly contrast with set_prototype_interaction or state when not to use it. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and example.

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