kernel_projects_link

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does contribute one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the schema: a GitHub/GitLab connection linked to a project is exclusive, reserving all its repos for that project. That is real side-effect disclosure, but it omits permissions, idempotency, behavior on duplicate links, and what is returned.

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 action, and the second sentence is the highest-value content (the exclusivity rule). The phrasing "its repos use that one" is slightly compressed and reads ambiguously, which costs it a point but not much space.

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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the one notable side effect but leaves error behavior, idempotency, and the meaning of two parameters unaddressed. Adequate but with real 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the resource types well enough to map almost all enum values (social/email account, repo, task project, workspace, GitHub/GitLab connection), but omits "website" and never explains what `project` or `ref_id` actually hold (name vs. id, slug format), leaving two of three parameters undefined.

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 opens with a specific verb+object pair ("Link an existing resource ... to a project") and enumerates the resource types covered, so an agent can distinguish it from kernel_projects_create or kernel_projects_assign_office. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to use instead, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 phrase "existing resource" implies a precondition (the resource must already exist, nothing is created), and the GitHub/GitLab sentence hints at a caveat to check before linking. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of what kernel_projects_create must have been called first, and no direction for already-linked resources.

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