link_cloud

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does well: it discloses that no copy is made, that resolution happens live through `cloud_links`, and that the edge type defaults to refers_to. It does not state idempotency, permission requirements, or what happens on a re-link of the same pair, so it falls short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core action and the copy-free guarantee before moving to the sibling comparison. The second sentence is long and clause-dense, but each clause (staleness, live resolution, defaults, multi-cloud) carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior, and it explains the reference semantics and live-resolution path. It is nearly complete for a 5-param tool; only idempotency, error behavior, and return shape are unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the closed edge_type vocabulary and the multi-cloud `cloud` semantics. The description reinforces the edge-type default and the cloud routing rationale but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'soft-link a local node to a cloud node by id' — and immediately clarifies the nature of the operation ('a reference, with NO copy in your vault'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `pull`, so an agent can route without reading either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Use it instead of pull when the cloud node is someone else's to maintain') plus the deciding condition ('Pull when you need the content locally; link when you need the citation'). It even explains the failure mode that motivates the choice — pull copies silently go stale when the owner revises.

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