clip_relink

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions the basic action, omitting important details like whether the operation is destructive, permission requirements, or what happens if no clips match. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.

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 concise sentence that gets to the point without extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key usage notes without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has 2 simple required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover common questions like whether folder_path must be a valid directory or how clip_handles are obtained. Completeness is low for an agent to execute 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds minimal parameter explanation. 'clip_handles' and 'folder_path' are named but not defined; the phrase 'pointing them at a folder' hints at folder_path's role but doesn't clarify clip_handles as identifiers. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the action (relink offline clips) and the method (by pointing at a folder to search). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like clip_replace and clip_unlink, which handle different clip operations.

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, prerequisites (e.g., clips must be offline), or when alternatives are more appropriate. It lacks explicit context for selection.

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