relink_files

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. 'Relink media files' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions needed, whether it's destructive, what happens to existing links, error conditions, or output format. This leaves critical behavioral traits completely unspecified.

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 at just three words with no wasted language. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the structure is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'relink' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by file system operations and the lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with a clear enum parameter ('original' or 'proxy'), so the description doesn't need to compensate. However, the description adds no additional context about parameter meaning beyond what's already documented in the schema, resulting in the baseline score for adequate schema coverage.

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 'Relink media files' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'relink_files' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what 'relink' means operationally or what resource is being acted upon, making it vague compared to more descriptive sibling tools like 'consolidate_files' or 'transcode_media'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that might involve file operations (like 'consolidate_files', 'import_media', 'transcode_media'), there's no indication of this tool's specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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