link_document_identification

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a linking/mutation operation but does not mention idempotency, side effects, reversibility, authentication needs, or error cases. This is minimal transparency for a state-changing 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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and a critical usage hint. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 description provides the immediate context (call after upload_attachment) and mentions KYC, but does not explain what the tool returns or what to do next after linking. Given no output schema, more detail on response/behavior would improve completeness.

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 already covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value with a concrete example for document_type and clarifies that document_country_of_issuance should be the country of residence. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 explicitly states the action ('links an uploaded attachment to a document type for KYC purposes') and provides a concrete example ('e.g. CRYPTO_KYC_QUESTIONNAIRE'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upload_attachment by specifying the sequence.

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 says 'Call after upload_attachment', providing a sequencing hint but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools cover different domains (e.g., banking, cards), so usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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