Link Shared Step

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

The description claims 'CAUTION: Destructive' but annotations set destructiveHint to false, creating a contradiction. This undermines trust; the description should align with annotations. Additionally, it provides some context about shared step expansion at execution time, but the contradiction is severe.

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 concise with three sentences: a clear purpose statement, a warning emoji, and a brief explanation of behavior. No unnecessary information; each sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the basic function and a warning, but it does not explain how parameters interact or what to expect in the output. The contradiction with annotations further reduces completeness. The output schema is present but the description doesn't leverage it.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., does not clarify 'confirm' requirement or 'position' behavior). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Link' and the resource 'a shared step to a test case', defining a specific action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unlink_shared_step' by indicating the opposite operation.

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 implies usage by explaining the function and adding a caution flag, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, prerequisites, or scenarios to avoid). There is no mention of when linking is appropriate or if there are constraints.

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