Link Inventory Person

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds useful operational context: a $0.10 cost and API key requirement. However, it does not state whether the link is created idempotently, whether existing links are replaced, or what failure modes might occur.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core concept and examples, but it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and no guidance on usage behavior. The brevity is efficient but not sufficiently informative.

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 tool has a simple purpose and an output schema, so return-value details are not required. However, the description leaves out required parameter semantics, allowed relationship values, idempotency behavior, and any guidance on selecting this tool over linking siblings, making it incomplete for correct autonomous invocation.

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 only 40%, and the three required parameters (inventory_id, person_id, relationship) have no schema descriptions. The description provides helpful relationship examples, which partially clarifies the relationship parameter, but it does not explain the semantics of inventory_id or person_id, nor does it specify allowed relationship values.

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 title and description together communicate a specific operation: linking an inventory item to a person with a provenance relationship, with concrete examples 'inherited_from, gifted_by'. It is distinguishable from generic siblings like link_entities or link_people by the inventory-person scope, though it does not explicitly state the verb 'creates' or define the exact link behavior.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as link_entities, link_people, or unlink_people. There is no mention of prerequisites, conflicts, or cases where another linking tool should be chosen instead.

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