wit_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state 'Escrita: write + confirm', signaling a mutating operation that expects a confirmation flag—useful safety context. However, it does not mention whether existing links are appended or replaced, permission requirements, or side effects, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 concise clauses: it front-loads the operation and resource, enumerates the link types, and ends with a behavioral note. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This tool has 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only a high-level summary. It does not explain how rel interacts with targetId, url, artifactValue, or repo, nor does it mention the project allowlist rule or the exact confirmation workflow. An agent would have to rely heavily on the schema and inference to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 60%, leaving four parameters without descriptions. The tool description adds semantic grouping to the rel values (e.g., hierarchy, related, dependency) and names the artifact categories, which helps interpret the schema. Yet it contributes no meaning for the undocumented parameters like expectedRev or comment, so compensation is incomplete.

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 has a clear verb ('Cria link') and resource ('em um work item') and lists the full range of link types (hierarchy, related, dependency, duplicate, hyperlink, code artifacts). This immediately differentiates wit_link from wit_unlink, wit_create, and wit_update, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 usage through the link-type enumeration, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like wit_unlink for removing links or wit_create for creating work items. No explicit exclusion or alternative routing is provided, leaving usage to inference.

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