Add Organize Link

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

Annotations declare mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). Description adds context with 'Experimental' label and warns against duplicates, hinting at non-idempotency. No further behavioral details (e.g., side effects, return value) are provided, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and experimental status, second directs to alternative. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers purpose and usage guidelines well but omits return value or error handling. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a mutable tool without output schema.

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% with parameter descriptions that clearly define each field (e.g., 'type' enum, 'index' default behavior). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what schema already provides, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'add', resource 'doc/tag/collection link', and location 'under an AFFiNE organize folder'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'move_organize_node' for existing links, providing excellent clarity.

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?

Description directly advises using 'move_organize_node' instead when an existing link node should be moved, preventing duplicate creation. It does not specify when to use this tool over other 'add' siblings, but the alternative guidance is clear and helpful.

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