link_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core linking action but does not mention whether existing links are appended or replaced, how duplicate links are handled, any permission requirements, or potential side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the verb 'Link' and includes a helpful parenthetical example. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a clear core function and example but lacks important behavioral details such as whether links are additive or replace existing links, and what the return value is. Since no output schema exists, the description could have addressed response behavior to be more complete.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds overall context by explaining that record_id is the target record and related_record_ids are records to attach. However, it does not add new details about parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 ('Link'), the objects ('one or more existing records'), the target ('a given record'), and the mechanism ('through a relational (Links) field'). The example 'attach child records to a parent' further clarifies the intended use, distinguishing this from siblings like unlink_records and list_linked_records.

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 when to use the tool (to create relational links) and provides a concrete example, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as unlink_records or list_linked_records. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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