link_stressor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and non-idempotent, so the agent knows this mutates state and that repeated calls may create duplicates or alter data. The description adds nothing beyond this – it doesn't explain what the link operation changes, whether it can overwrite existing links, or what permissions are required, despite this being a destructive write.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but the extreme brevity here reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is front-loaded but says too little to be actionable.

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 9 parameters with no schema descriptions, a destructive non-idempotent mutation, and a crowded sibling toolset, the description is far too thin. While an output schema exists (so return-value explanation isn't needed), the lack of parameter clarification and usage context leaves critical gaps.

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?

The schema has 9 parameters, 8 required, with 0% description coverage and no enums, so the schema gives no meaning for fields like 'label', 'source', 'target', or 'summary'. The description does not mention or clarify any parameter, leaving the agent unable to know what values to supply for these ambiguous required fields.

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 'Link a stressor to a draft entity' is close to a restatement of the name and gives no detail about what a 'draft entity' is, what kind of link is created, or how it relates to the many sibling draft/review tools. It names a verb and two resources, but is too vague to distinguish this from numerous other draft-mutation tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_or_update_ke, attach_registry_handoff_to_draft, or create_draft_aop, nor any mention of prerequisites. The description offers no conditions or exclusions.

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