link_poem_to_nexus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it 'safely updates' and 'preserves all other fields', 'creates a backup before modification', and 'automatically resyncs catalog after update'. This covers safety, mutation effects, and side-effects, though it could mention permissions or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by behavioral details, then parameter explanations, return value, and an example. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and returns, but could improve by mentioning error cases or linking to sibling tools for context, though the output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'poem_id' as 'Poem identifier (ID or title)', 'nexus_name' with examples ('Water-Liquid', 'Childhood'), and 'nexus_type' with default and allowed values ('theme/motif/form'). This clarifies beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints for 'poem_id'.

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 specific action ('Link a poem to a nexus by adding the nexus's canonical tag'), identifies the resource ('poem'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'sync_nexus_tags' or 'find_nexuses_for_poem' by focusing on the linking operation rather than synchronization or querying.

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 through the example (linking a poem to a theme) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sync_nexus_tags' or 'move_poem_to_state'. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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