Link Beat To Thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this creates or mutates a relationship, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the beat/thread/curve do not exist.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded phrase with no padding, which is structurally fine. But it largely duplicates the tool name and title, so it does not really earn its place beyond them.

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?

This is a mutation-style linking tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, and the description supplies none of the missing context. An agent has almost nothing to go on beyond the literal name.

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% across four parameters (curve_id, beat_id, thread_id, project_id), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. In particular it never explains the role of curve_id, the optional project_id, or the expected ID formats.

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 phrase 'link beat to thread' names a verb and two resources, so the basic operation is discernible. However, it essentially restates the tool name (and the title), adding only the clarification that 'thread' means a foreshadowing thread (伏笔线程). It gives no differentiation from siblings such as link_event_to_scene or connect_nodes.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance at all. An agent cannot tell from this description when linking a beat to a thread is appropriate versus registering a thread or advancing a thread phase.

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