link_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the destination receives an HScript expression using chs() or ch(), that the path is relative to the destination node, that the link survives restructuring, and that the reply contains the expression, function, and evaluated value. It does not mention overwriting existing destination values or failure modes, but the main behavioral contract is well covered.

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 compact and well-structured: a purpose sentence, a mechanism/behavior explanation, a return-value sentence, and a small Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, it is good that the description explicitly mentions what the reply contains. The mutation-type side effect is also described concretely. However, it does not specify error behavior, node/parameter existence prerequisites, or the exact response shape, so the description is solid but not fully exhaustive.

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 for missing parameter documentation. The Args list maps all four parameters to their roles ('Source node path', 'Source parameter name', etc.), which is useful but mostly restates the parameter names. It does not provide syntax details such as expected path formats, absolute vs relative paths, or parameter naming conventions, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 first sentence clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a channel reference from one parameter to another.' The following sentences clarify what that means in Houdini terms (HScript expression, type-dependent function, relative paths), making the purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like set_expression or get_parm_references, but the core action 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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to link two parameters via a channel reference. It also explains behavioral consequences such as relative path resolution and surviving subnets/HDAs, which helps an agent decide if this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or when to prefer an alternative tool.

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