link_video_project_to_variant

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the 1:1 constraint and the unlink behavior, which is important. However, it doesn't state whether this is idempotent, what happens if the variant is already linked to another video_project, or the return shape. Some but not full disclosure.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the action and constraint, then explain the rationale and unlink option. No wasted words, though the brxce-editor detail is niche but relevant.

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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the special creation workflow and unlink semantics. Missing explicit collision handling (e.g., existing 1:1 link) is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the null-to-unlink semantics. The description reinforces but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb (link/unlink), specific resources (video_project to variant), and the cardinality (1:1). Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_video_project and update_variant by explaining it fills a FK gap.

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?

Explains the exact scenario it exists for: video_projects created via brxce-editor API lack variant_id, so this tool fills the FK. Also explicitly states how to unlink. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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