create_note_relationship

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses the important destructive trait: for customer relationships, the existing link is replaced. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens to entity ('link') relationships when re-linking.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the action and immediately following with the critical replace behavior. No wasted 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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and a key destructive trait but omits permissions, error conditions, or return value. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps given the lack of structured behavioral hints.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including the enum for 'type'. The description adds the concept of customer vs. entity linking but doesn't clarify the targetType parameter or noteId usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Link) and resource (a Productboard note) with the target scope (customer/entity). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_entity_relationship and set_note_customer by describing the linking action and its replace semantics.

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 implies when to use it (to link a note to a customer or entity) and notes that customer links are replaced, but it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over set_note_customer or a generic relationship tool. Usage is inferable but not directed.

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