Link document to item

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

Annotations already declare the write semantics (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that this creates a relation to a polymorphic target, but says nothing about what happens on a duplicate link attempt, required permissions, or whether it modifies the existing item.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations and every clause carries 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?

With a full output schema and complete annotations, the description only needs to convey the operation and its target space, which it does. The remaining gap is the absence of any usage context, but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100% - documents_id, itemtype, and items_id are each documented in the schema. The description only echoes the itemtype concept ('Ticket, KnowbaseItem, etc.') without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a link between a document and an item') and even names example target types. An agent can distinguish it from glpi_get_document_item, glpi_list_document_items, and glpi_delete_document_item by name, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the document must already exist via glpi_create_document), and no mention of when to prefer this over listing or fetching links. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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