link_properties

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the high-level action. It does not disclose whether existing expressions are overwritten, if the link is reversible, or any side effects on keyframes or layer properties. This lack of detail for a write operation is a significant gap.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, effectively communicating the core action without unnecessary words.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), a six-word description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, edge cases, or how it relates to expression-setting tools, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema covers only 11% of parameters (only offset has a description), and the description adds minimal semantic value. It implies sourceProperty and targetProperty but says nothing about compId, layer names, or indices. With 9 parameters, the description doesn't compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Link two properties with an expression' uses a specific verb (link), identifies the resource (two properties), and clarifies the mechanism (with an expression). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_expression, which focuses on a single property.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_expression or modifying expressions directly. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without explicit usage direction.

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