propose_wikilinks

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

Beyond annotations (non-destructive, non-read-only), explains that apply mode stages rewritten pages but respects the proposal-review contract (nothing lands until resolve_proposal). Notes that scope mode is faster and uses a shared slug index. 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?

Front-loaded with main purpose, then modes, then additional details. Every sentence contributes information. Well-structured and efficient with 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?

Describes return format for single-page (ranked list of {phrase, wikilink, occurrences}) and scope (aggregated suggestions). Covers apply mode and proposal workflow. Lacks error handling or edge cases, but sufficient given no output schema and clear parameter descriptions.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning: explains mutual exclusivity of path and scope, details apply behavior (stages one propose_page per scanned page), and caps for maxPages and maxSuggestions. Adds value beyond schema descriptors.

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?

Clearly states it scans vault pages for entity-shaped phrases and proposes wikilinks. Distinguishes two modes (single-page and scope) and mentions target personas (A3/B3). Specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like propose_page and propose_entity_stubs.

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?

Describes when to use: scanning for entity-shaped phrases to propose wikilinks. Implicitly distinguishes from other propose tools (e.g., propose_page for rewriting). Mentions scenarios (many files, few wikilinks) and that scope mode is faster than repeated calls. Could be explicit about when not to use, but context is clear.

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