link

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that it creates new directory entries pointing to the same inode, that hard links cannot span filesystems, and that overwrite protection is enabled by default. It also mentions the dry-run flag for preview, providing comprehensive behavioral 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 well-structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, then explains destructive nature, limitations, and usage tips. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and is a file operation tool, the description covers all essential aspects: behavior, constraints (filesystem scope), safety features (dry-run, overwrite protection), and comparisons to siblings. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the use of dry-run and overwrite protection in context, and by stating that returns JSON with link path and status. It does not fully detail each parameter, but the added context justifies a 4.

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 tool creates hard links, explains what hard links are, and distinguishes it from symbolic links and copying. It is specific about the verb 'Create' and the resource 'hard links', and it differentiates from sibling tools (ln, cp).

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to create additional names for same file content without copying) and when not to use it (not for symbolic links, not for copying). It provides explicit alternatives: 'use ln --symbolic' and 'use cp'. It also mentions dry-run and overwrite protection.

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