ln

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful context: it labels the tool as 'Destructive: creates filesystem links', mentions dry-run and overwrite protection, and notes that it returns JSON with link path and type. No contradictions with annotations.

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 very concise (6 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds relevant information. No redundant or unnecessary phrases.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers the main purpose, usage guidance, safety features, and return type (JSON with link path and type). A minor gap is the lack of details on the return structure, but this is partially compensated by stating it returns JSON.

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?

Input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the behavior of dry-run and overwrite protection beyond the schema, and clarifies the use of --symbolic for symlinks. This improves understanding of parameter semantics.

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 or symbolic links, with specific verbs ('Create') and resources ('hard or symbolic links'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'link' (guaranteed hard links) and 'cp' (copying), making the purpose clear and unique.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for creating filesystem aliases'), when not to use it ('Not for hard-link-only operations — use 'link'; Not for copying — use 'cp''), and explains the --symbolic flag for cross-filesystem or directory symlinks. It directly addresses alternatives.

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