Gjør synlig i et annet prosjekt

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the operation is referential not duplicative, the source atom is unchanged, the level can be re-invoked to adjust an existing reference, and L is the default for the owner's own projects. It does not mention permissions or what happens on a failed link, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 copy-vs-reference constraint is front-loaded, then usage triggers, then the level semantics and the re-invocation behavior. Dense but every sentence carries information; slightly packed toward the end with the level explanation.

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?

Three parameters, no output schema, and annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description covers semantics, triggers, and level behavior; only error/permission behavior is absent, which is a minor gap for a well-annotated link tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the enum: S = bare ingress, M = summary, L = everything (and the L default rationale). The id parameter's provenance (from tua_search/tua_list) is already in the schema. This is meaningful compensation above baseline.

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+resource (make an atom visible in another project) and immediately disambiguates the semantics that matter most: it creates a REFERENCE, never a copy, and the atom still exists once in its origin project. This distinguishes it clearly from copy-like or duplicate operations and from siblings such as tua_unlink.

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?

Explicit trigger phrases are given («gjør dette synlig i X», «del dette med prosjekt X», «prosjekt X trenger dette»), plus the extension case: call again with a new level to raise or lower an existing reference. An agent knows exactly when to reach for this tool.

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