Link artifacts (generic)

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

With no annotations, the description carries significant burden for disclosing behavior. It explains the source-to-target link direction but omits the unlink capability (unlink parameter), side effects, permissions, or reversibility. This is a notable gap for a mutation 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?

The description is four sentences, each contributing meaning: generic purpose, link mechanism, example, and supported types. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core linking operation and supported types, but lacks mention of unlink behavior, return values, or edge cases. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, more detail would help the agent use the tool correctly.

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 descriptions already cover all six parameters at 100%. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between objectType/objectId and linkType/targetIds, but it does not elaborate on the unlink parameter or other nuances, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a generic object-linking mechanism between qTest artifact types, with a concrete example and a list of supported types. It distinguishes itself from specific sibling tools like qtest_link_test_cases_to_requirement by emphasizing its generic nature.

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 implies use for arbitrary artifact pairings not covered by specialized linking tools, and the example provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the specific link/unlink siblings or mention exclusions.

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