link_audio_video

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool mutates the link state, which is helpful, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if the clip is already linked, or if there's no matching audio/video component). It's a straightforward but minimal disclosure.

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?

A single, compact sentence that conveys the complete operation in 10 words. Every word earns its place, and the dual-action nature (link/unlink) is front-loaded. Zero verbosity; the definition of concise.

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 two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential information. It could be enhanced by elaborating on linkage edge cases (e.g., what happens with unlinked or video-only clips), but the current offering is adequate and complete for the tool's simplicity.

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%—both clipId ('The ID of the clip') and linked ('Whether to link (true) or unlink (false)') are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add or need to add parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific, unambiguous verb pair ('links or unlinks') with a clear resource ('audio and video components of a clip'). It fully explains the tool's dual functionality and leaves no doubt about what operation is performed, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 implies when this tool is used—when a user wants to toggle the link state of a clip's audio/video components. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it, prerequisites (e.g., whether the clip must be a linked pair), or differentiation from related siblings like link_selection/unlink_selection.

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