link_properties

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

No annotations are present, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool overwrites existing expressions, requires certain layers to exist, or what side effects occur (e.g., if source or target property is missing). The description is too terse to convey critical behavioral information.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence. While it does not waste words, it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool (9 parameters). A balanced description would provide a bit more detail without being verbose, so this is minimally acceptable but not optimal.

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 9 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how layers are identified, what 'offset' means, or how compId differs from compName. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 has 9 parameters with only 11% description coverage (only 'offset' has a description). The description adds no explanation for parameters like compId, sourceLayerName, targetLayerIndex, etc. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving significant ambiguity.

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' clearly specifies the action (linking) and the resource (properties) with a means (expression). It differentiates from sibling tools like set_expression, which sets an expression on a single property, and apply_expression_template, which applies a template. However, it does not fully clarify what 'linking' entails (e.g., creating a pickwhip reference or generating an expression on the target).

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_expression or enable_expression. There are no examples, prerequisites, or scenarios mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on choosing this tool over siblings.

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