apply_file_relink_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only says it applies relinks and saves a result. It does not state whether the original assembly file is modified in place, whether a KOMPAS session must be open, what happens when output_path is null, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place, though 'through KOMPAS itself' is slightly vague. It could be expanded without becoming wasteful.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, this is incomplete. The agent cannot determine how to construct the changes array, what output_path null means, or how this compares to the closely related relink tools in the sibling list.

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%, and the description only maps assembly file to assembly_path and target path to output_path. The critical 'changes' parameter (array of arbitrary objects) is not described at all, so the agent receives no information about what each relink change should look like.

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 clear action (apply relinks), target resource (assembly file), execution mechanism (through KOMPAS itself), and output behavior (save result to target path). This is enough to distinguish it from generic tools, though it does not explain what a relink is or how it differs from apply_relink_paths.

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 is provided about when to call this tool versus the many sibling tools (preview_file_relink_paths, build_file_relink_plan, apply_relink_paths, relink_to_export, etc.). The phrase 'through KOMPAS itself' hints at mechanism, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative-routing information.

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