Build a CERIF linking entity fragment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important default behavior: omitted classId/classSchemeId default to 'unclassified'/'cerif', and sides can be omitted for placeholders. It does not mention output format or validation, but the core construction behavior is clear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then concise usage constraints. Every clause contributes information, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the key decision points: side specification, classification defaults, and optional dates/fraction. It omits details about the `values` parameter and the exact return structure, but the overview is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most 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?

The input schema already describes all 10 parameters, with 100% coverage, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the `sides` vs `idA`/`idB` relationship and the classification default, which are not apparent from the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Builds a linking entity element (e.g. cfProj_Pers, cfOrgUnit_Class) connecting two CERIF entities,' which is a specific verb+resource with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling `build_entity` by emphasizing the linking 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?

It explains how to provide side IDs via `sides` or `idA`/`idB`, and points to `get_scheme` for canonical classification terms. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative like `build_entity` for non-link fragments, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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