propose_links

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds important lifecycle context beyond annotations: proposed links are stored as UNCONFIRMED and do not count until a human accepts them, which explains the tool's side effects and approval requirement.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the storage/approval behavior, then a usage preference. No sentence is wasted and the key constraint is not buried.

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?

The tool takes a nested array of proposed links and has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should explain parameter expectations, but it does not. It does provide the essential UNCONFIRMED/acceptance behavior and an output schema exists, but the agent is left without guidance on constructing the main argument.

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 should compensate by explaining the expected link structure. Instead it gives no details about the 'links' array, its required fields (req_id, kind, target, rationale), or the target path::qualname format, leaving parameter meaning almost entirely to the schema's type definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest trace links you believe exist but are not annotated.' It distinguishes the scope from normal annotations by explaining they are unconfirmed and do not count until accepted, but it does not name any sibling tool as an alternative, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'links you believe exist but are not annotated' and the preference note 'Prefer adding annotations.' However, it never states explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use conditions or names an alternative tool, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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