link_system_dependency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it explains the dependency becomes a compliance requirement, describes two independent satisfaction paths, and discloses the unlink sentinel behavior. Minor gaps remain around failure modes or auth needs, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, then expands with necessary behavioral details. Every sentence contributes: dependency semantics, satisfaction paths, prerequisites, unlink behavior, and inspection tool. No filler or redundancy.

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 operation's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: prerequisite state, behavioral effects, unlink semantics, alternate attestation path, and a related inspection tool. It does not explain server_version, but the overall guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 75%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the unlink behavior of target_model_id ('Pass an empty target_model_id to unlink') and tying the operation to linked_co_ids from add_assumption/edit_assumption. server_version remains unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Link an external assumption to a target model in the same system.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_assumption and edit_assumption by framing the operation as a cross-model, system-scoped dependency.

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?

It provides clear context: the assumption must already be linked to control objectives, empty target_model_id unlinks, and get_system_dependencies can inspect the result. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use', but it names related tools and prerequisites well.

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