akb_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a relation but does not clarify whether it overwrites existing relations, requires specific permissions, or handles invalid URIs. Key behavioral traits are missing, making it insufficient for a creation tool.

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 with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide specific details (relation types, example). Every sentence adds value without redundancy or 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 lack of output schema and sibling tools that include akb_unlink and akb_relations, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it does not explain what the tool returns on success or how errors are handled, leaving some gaps for an agent to fully understand the invocation context.

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 full coverage (100%), but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that source and target are AKB URIs, lists all relation types from the enum, and provides usage examples. This goes beyond the schema by offering contextual guidance on how to use each parameter.

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 tool creates a relation between two resources, lists all relation types, and provides an example by mentioning linking a design doc to a data table. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like akb_unlink, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (creating a relation between any two resources) and provides examples of usage (e.g., link a design doc to its data table). However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives like akb_relations for viewing existing relations, which prevents a higher score.

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