link_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Vincula' indicates a mutation, but the description does not disclose side effects, reversibility, duplicate-link behavior, permissions, or return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a concrete, useful example. Every word contributes value.

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?

For a simple linking operation, the purpose and parameter semantics are sufficiently covered, and the example reduces ambiguity about entity direction. However, there is no output schema or return-value explanation, and no behavioral context such as effects or error conditions, so completeness is only minimum-viable.

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 100%, and the schema already explains the base vs. attached entity relationship. The example reinforces that meaning but does not add substantive new semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Vincula duas entidades') and gives a concrete example that defines the direction of the link. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like create_lead or update_contact, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from alternatives.

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: if you need to associate two entities, this is the tool. The classic example suggests one realistic scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. It is adequate but not explicit.

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