link_guardian_to_student

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that existing links are left untouched, that unlinking is destructive and deferred, and that writes require PS_ENABLE_WRITES. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a key behavioral note and parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter list is slightly redundant with the schema.

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's simplicity (3 required integer params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it requires, and what it doesn't do. It could mention the return value, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 explains each parameter: school_id, user_id (from list_parents), student_id (from list_students). This adds provenance and meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Link an existing guardian to an additional student.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_parent or list_links. It also clarifies the scope (additional student, not initial creation).

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 explicitly notes the requirement PS_ENABLE_WRITES and states that unlinking is deferred to the ParentSquare website, which helps an agent know when not to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for unlinking, but the context is clear enough.

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