Link or unlink a pull profile and a version

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

Adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations: running deployments are unaffected, only new ones pick up the bucket files. This is exactly the kind of side-effect information annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, open-world) cannot convey. It doesn't cover auth requirements or what happens on a duplicate link, so not a 5.

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?

A single sentence with the primary action front-loaded, the inverse operation parenthesized, and the side-effect caveat last. 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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers purpose, the unlink variant, and the deployment-timing behavior, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Minor gaps: behavior on an already-linked profile and error modes are unaddressed.

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 six parameters including `unlink` and `dry_run`. The description restates `unlink: true` but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, putting it at the baseline.

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/unlink) and resource (pull profile ↔ application version) and explains the functional consequence: new deployments get bucket files at boot. No sibling tool performs linking, so it is inherently distinct, though the description doesn't name alternatives.

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?

Explicitly explains how to trigger the inverse operation via `unlink: true`, which is the main usage branch for this tool. Lacks explicit when-to-use context (e.g. link profiles only after the profile and version both exist), but the operational guidance is clear.

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