link_selection

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It offers no information about side effects, what the operation changes, whether it requires a selection, or any safety implications. The phrase 'expanded operation' is vague and does not clarify the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specification rather than concise. It merely rephrases the tool name and adds no functional value. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description must provide complete context. It fails to explain what linking a selection entails, what inputs are implicitly used (e.g., current selection), or what the result would be. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed since there are no parameters to describe.

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 'Premiere Pro expanded operation: link selection.' essentially restates the tool name without defining what 'link selection' means. It does not specify the verb action clearly (e.g., 'Links selected clips' or 'Creates a link between selected items') nor differentiates from siblings like 'unlink_selection' or 'link_audio_video'. This is a tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or relationships to sibling tools such as 'unlink_selection' or 'link_audio_video'. The user is left without any contextual cues for selection.

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