outliner-object_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the core behavior (does not remove existing collection membership), but it omits other relevant details such as whether the object/collection must already exist, if the operation is idempotent, or any side effects like updating parent links. This is a basic but not thorough disclosure.

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, tightly worded sentence that conveys the essential action and constraint. No filler or redundancy; every word adds value.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters, the description covers the primary action but lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, or the broader outliner hierarchy. It is minimal but not entirely insufficient; still, it could benefit from mentioning typical usage or expected behavior when memberships already exist.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. However, it provides no additional information beyond the schema's titles ('Object to link' and 'Target collection'). It does not clarify parameter formats, required identifiers, or how they relate to the linking operation, leaving agents guessing.

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 an object into a collection') and specifies the key constraint ('without removing existing collection membership'), making it distinct from sibling tools like outliner-object_unlink or outliner-object_move. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 the intended use case by noting that existing membership is preserved, which suggests when to use this over alternatives that move or unlink. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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