add_types_functions

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

Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'Link' which is consistent but provides no additional behavioral details such as duplicate handling, error behavior, or constraints. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the annotation information.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that immediately state the action and a usage benefit. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 simple add operation with a single well-documented parameter, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and provides a query example. However, it could mention what happens on duplicates or the return value (since no output schema exists), but these omissions are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% with a detailed description of the 'relationships' parameter, including the role enumeration. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states the verb 'Link' and specifies the objects ('tracked types' and 'functions') with a role. It also provides a concrete use case query, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like delete_type_function or update_type_function_role.

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 its use for creating links between types and functions, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_type_function_role for modifying roles) and does not address exclusions or prerequisites.

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