relink-asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation ('rewrite every reference') and offers a dry-run preview. However, it does not explain the scope of changes (e.g., all documents in the world), irreversibility, or what happens if oldPath is invalid.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, usage tip, and authorization. Every sentence adds value with no superfluous words.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., count of changed documents or list of affected files). It adequately covers core functionality and a key parameter tip, but lacks details on expected output and error handling.

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% (all three parameters described). The description adds value by explaining the dryRun parameter's use ('preview without writing'), which goes beyond the schema's default description. For oldPath and newPath, the schema already provides adequate descriptions.

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 that the tool rewrites every reference from one asset path to another after moving/renaming a file, using specific action-oriented language. It distinguishes from siblings like move-asset (which moves the file itself) and copy-asset (which copies).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Pass dryRun:true to preview the documents that would change without writing' and 'GM-only' for authorization. It implies use after asset relocation, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like find-asset-references.

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