link_mitigation_to_threat

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action and that a confirmation message is returned. It does not clarify idempotency, behavior if the link already exists, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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 somewhat redundant: the opening sentence repeats the intent of the second paragraph. The Args section is useful but could be tightened. It is still relatively brief, but not optimally concise.

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 linking tool, the description covers the basics: action, required args, and return value. However, it omits behavioral context (e.g., idempotency) that would be valuable given the lack of annotations. The presence of an output schema mitigates some absence of return details.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'mitigation_id: ID of the mitigation to link' and 'threat_id: ID of the threat to link to.' This adds meaning beyond the schema titles, though it lacks details like format or existence requirements.

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 tool's function: 'Link a mitigation to a threat.' It uses a specific verb and resource pair, and the scope ('in the threat model') is mentioned. This distinguishes it from related tools like unlink_mitigation_from_threat.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., unlink_mitigation_from_threat) or any prerequisites such as mitigation and threat existing. The context is implied only by the action, with no explicit exclusions or conditions.

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