Link Shared Step

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

The description claims 'Destructive' but annotations have destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not disclose other behaviors such as whether the shared step is modified or the full impact on the test case.

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 extremely concise with three short items: action, caution, explanation. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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?

The description is too sparse given 6 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the confirm safety mechanism, position indexing details, or output format options. More context is needed for correct usage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions linking a shared step but does not explain parameters like position, output_format, or the confirm parameter's role.

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 (link a shared step to a test case) and explains the effect (adds reference, actions expand at execution). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_shared_step or unlink_shared_step.

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 explains when to use (to include a shared step in a test case) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like unlink_shared_step. It has a caution about destructiveness, but that is contradicted by annotations.

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