Link requirement/tests/commits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether links are additive or idempotent, whether a link can be removed, what the 'validate' flag changes, or what permissions are required. The mutation semantics of 'Link' are implied but never detailed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding; the verb and target domain come first. It is efficient, though the compressed 'files and/or commits' phrasing sacrifices some clarity for brevity.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the single sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell what 'validate' does, what the required 'id' identifies, or what a successful link produces.

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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It usefully documents the requirement-id format (capability/requirement[#scenario]) and the kinds of targets (tests, files, commits), but leaves 'id' (the required key), 'validate', and 'files' unexplained.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it links a decision to requirement ids, tests, and commits. The 'SpecGate requirement ids (capability/requirement[#scenario])' phrasing makes the target domain concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like record_decision or supersede_decision.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among siblings (record_decision, search_decisions, etc.). Usage is only implied by 'Link a decision to...' with no statement of at what point in a workflow this should be invoked.

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