rlm_link_collection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, error handling (e.g., if collection already linked), or consequences of linking. The description is minimal, leaving the agent uninformed about important behavioral details.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient with no extraneous words. However, it could benefit from an additional sentence clarifying typical use cases or constraints without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., user must have access to the project), or behavior when collection is already linked. The description provides only the basic action and default project behavior, leaving significant gaps for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., default for project_id_or_slug is repeated). Baseline 3 is appropriate as description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the action ('Link an existing shared collection to a project') and identifies the resource (shared collection) and target (project). It distinguishes from siblings like rlm_unlink_collection and rlm_create_collection by specifying that this tool links an existing collection.

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 when to use this tool (to link a shared collection) and mentions default behavior for project_id_or_slug, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion cases.

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