legal_link_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that content is written into post_content immediately and on every later save, the mirrored flag semantics, that the text persists after plugin deactivation, and the banner_linked side effect for impressum/datenschutz. It omits return/error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose and scope, and every sentence carries operational detail. The nested parentheticals (mirrored, banner_linked) make it somewhat dense/run-on, so it is not maximally clean.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the key risks an agent must know: write side effects, persistence, version prerequisite, and unlink semantics. Return value and failure modes are not described, leaving a small gap.

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%, so the schema already documents doc, site, and page_id (including '0 to unlink'). The description reinforces the page_id=0 unlink behavior and the allowed document types, but adds little beyond the structured fields, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Link a legal document to its WordPress page') and immediately constrains scope ('post type page only; posts and products are refused'). This distinguishes it from generic page/mutation siblings such as wp_update_page and legality-rendering tools like legal_render_document.

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?

Gives clear context (link a rendered legal document into a page) and important exclusions (only page post type; posts and products refused; page_id 0 unlinks; requires cvrt-legal 0.4.2+). It does not name an explicit alternative tool to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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