relink_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits such as mutability, path validation, or reversibility. It only says 'Relink' which implies mutation but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, whether the new path must exist, or what errors may occur. This is a significant 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 a single sentence that states the core purpose without extra words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place as a concise summary. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools with overlapping functionality, this description is too thin. It fails to explain prerequisites, selection of the asset, success/failure behavior, or relationship to replace_asset/embed_asset. A minimal viable description for this complexity should include at least usage context.

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 description coverage is 75%, leaving timeoutSec without a description. The tool description adds zero parameter semantics and doesn't clarify how to select the asset (name vs linkId) or that filePath is required. The schema provides most meaning, but the description's silence on ambiguity between name and linkId prevents a higher score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Relink') and resource ('a placed asset') with a clear target ('new file path on disk'), making the action unmistakable. It also differentiates from sibling tools like replace_asset and embed_asset by focusing on relinking (path update) rather than replacement or embedding.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replace_asset or embed_asset. It lacks context like 'use when a linked asset's file has moved' or 'prefer this over replace_asset when only the path changes.' No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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