add_context_link

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action ('Attach') but gives no information on side effects, permissions, or what happens when both folder_id and project_id are provided. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond the core action is a significant gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and target, then a succinct list of use cases. Every sentence contributes value and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers what the tool does and gives usage context, but for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, it omits critical details like expected behavior if both target IDs are provided, error handling, or return value. It's adequate but leaves noticeable gaps.

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 five parameters. The description adds examples of accepted URLs (Figma, Confluence, Google Docs) and clarifies the free-text note use case, but it doesn't elaborate on the folder_id/project_id relationship beyond the schema's 'Provide either' instruction. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Attach' and identifies the resource as 'a reference link or note' targeted at 'a collection or project/prototype.' It also lists concrete examples (Figma designs, PRDs, Confluence docs) that distinguish it from sibling tools like remove_context_link and list_context_links.

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 clear use-case guidance ('Use this to add links to Figma designs, PRDs, Confluence docs, or free-text notes') which tells the agent when to invoke it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous compared to siblings like sync_context.

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