ae_linkProperties

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive mutation; the description adds that it writes an actual expression string (pick-whip) and applies a linear scale/offset. It omits what happens to a pre-existing expression on the target property, unit expectations for multiplier/offset, and behavior on property-type mismatch — meaningful gaps for a write tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the object-of-action first and modifiers trailing. Dense but every clause carries information; only slight cost is that it packs comp resolution into a trailing ambiguous phrase.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the core mechanic but not the return/effect story or the duplicate comp-resolution parameters. Adequate to attempt a call, insufficient to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 only 38% (offset, multiplier, sourceComp, sourceProperty, targetProperty undocumented), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the source/target pairing and the 'scaled by multiplier and offset' relationship, but leaves the sourceComp vs compositionName distinction ambiguous — 'optionally from another comp' could refer to either — and never states whether offset applies before or after scaling.

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?

Uses a precise verb+resource: 'drive targetLayer.targetProperty from sourceLayer.sourceProperty with an expression (pick-whip)'. That pins down the source→target mapping and the mechanism, which no sibling name conveys as clearly. It does not differentiate itself from ae_setExpression or ae_applyExpressionTemplate, which is the remaining gap.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The only conditional hint is 'optionally from another comp', which is a capability note rather than selection guidance. An agent must infer from the name whether this beats ae_setExpression.

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