link_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is the gating policy: relationships must be user-stated or evidence-backed, automatic linking may be refused, and links are many-to-many. It still doesn't say whether an existing link is replaced or duplicated when the same pair is relinked.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads what is linked, the second the invocation policy. No filler, though the terse style means some semantics are squeezed out rather than omitted for brevity.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the safety/authorization policy well, but leaves required inputs such as `reason` and the confirmed/rejected `status` semantics unexplained, so an agent cannot fully populate the call from the description alone.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It conveys `kind` (directory/session/record/project) and `matter` implicitly, and hints at `status` via 'can reject automatic linking', but never explains the required `reason` parameter or what `target` accepts.

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 (link/associate) and enumerates the four resource kinds (directory, session, record, old project) that get attached to a matter, plus the many-to-many nature. It is distinguishable from relate_matters, which links matters to each other, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 precondition: only invoke when the user has stated the relationship or evidence has been verified, and explicitly permits rejecting automatic linking. This is a clear when/when-not rule, but no alternative tool (search_context, relate_matters, remember) is named for the cases where linking is inappropriate.

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