Link Identities to Companies

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

Annotations provide base info: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Requires administrator access' but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what happens if links already exist, or any side effects. Behavioral context beyond annotations is minimal.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes an essential prerequisite. No filler or redundant information.

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 single parameter with nested objects and no output schema, the description provides the core action and required access level. However, it omits return value information and edge case behavior (e.g., duplicate links, partial success). With annotations covering basic safety, the description is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each property. The description repeats the structure but adds no new semantic detail (e.g., role format, constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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: 'Assign companies and roles to identities to give them access to the system.' The verb 'assign' and resource 'identities to companies' are specific. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unlink_identities_from_companies' (reverse) or 'get_identities' (read-only).

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 only guidance provided is 'Requires administrator access.' There is no explicit indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when identities already have links or when to use 'create_identities' instead. No 'when not to use' or comparison with sibling tools is given.

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