cite_child_link

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by explaining what the created citation asserts (both sides of the link) and the confidence-inheritance hazard of handle reuse. It does not disclose the response shape or whether an existing citation is created versus linked, leaving some behavior implicit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the rationale, then the one-parent caveat. It is longer than strictly necessary and somewhat prose-heavy, but each sentence carries a distinct, non-redundant point.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the claim semantics, and the reuse pitfall well. It omits what a successful call returns (e.g. new citation handle) and any prerequisite about the ChildRef already existing, which are minor gaps given the rich schema.

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 100% and the nested CitationInput already documents the source/citation/page/confidence precedence, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by warning that the `citation` argument is for the PARENTAGE claim and should be a new citation rather than a reused handle, which adds decision guidance on which of the three required parameters to fill how.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: 'Cite the parent-child link itself, on the family's ChildRef.' This cleanly separates it from siblings like cite_event, cite_object, add_child_to_family, and update_child_ref, and the framing around the parentage claim being distinct from a record-entry claim sharpens the scope.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not: do not reuse the child's existing citation handle because it borrows confidence from an unrelated claim, and when only one parent is evidenced, cite that parent's relationship instead of implying both. It stops short of naming the exact alternative tool, so the routing is clear but not fully enumerated.

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