proxy_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions that proxy_path must be absolute, but fails to explain what happens if the clip already has a proxy, whether it overwrites, or any side effects. The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 short sentences with no redundant information. The important constraint is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the parameters.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist, proxy file must exist). An agent would lack sufficient information to use the tool reliably.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameters. It states 'proxy_path must be absolute', which adds a constraint, but 'handle' remains completely unexplained. This leaves the agent guessing about the handle's meaning (e.g., clip ID, timeline handle).

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?

Clearly states 'Link a proxy media file to a clip', identifying the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like clip_relink or proxy_unlink, which also deal with linking/unlinking proxies.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that proxy_unlink should be used to remove a proxy, or that clip_relink might be used for relinking media. The description only states what it does, not the context.

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