akb_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that source and target are AKB URIs and lists relation types, but does not disclose idempotency, error handling, permission requirements, or what happens if the relation already exists.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and providing all necessary details without extraneous 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 no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation). The examples are helpful but do not complete the behavioral picture. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining source/target as AKB URIs and providing an example, but the schema already has enums and descriptions for relation. Minimal additional value 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 it creates a relation between two resources, specifies that resources are AKB URIs, lists all relation types, and gives concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like akb_unlink (removing relations) and akb_relations (listing relations).

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 provides explicit usage guidance by mentioning linking resources like design doc to data table or attaching a diagram file to a spec. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies when to use this over others.

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