create_association

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the validity matrix, which is genuinely behavioral, but says nothing about duplicate-link handling, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens when an invalid type pair is supplied.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first line and the remaining text is a compact rule table with no filler sentences. The compressed arrow notation is terse but readable; nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a seven-parameter open-world mutation with zero schema descriptions, the missing semantics for product_id and comment and the absence of failure/duplicate behavior leave real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it documents association_type values and constrains source/dest type combinations well. However, comment and product_id — two of the seven parameters — get no explanation at all, so the coverage gap is only partially compensated.

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?

Opening verb+resource pair 'Link two artifacts' is specific and distinct from sibling creators like product_create_artifact and create_comment. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the action is unambiguous enough that an agent won't confuse it with artifact mutation tools.

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 allowed source->dest matrix per association_type is effectively a legality guide: an agent can determine before calling whether a given pair is permitted and which association_type applies. What is missing is guidance on prerequisites (do both artifacts need to pre-exist, is product_id required for cross-product links) and on alternatives.

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