build_file_relink_map_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'build a grouped actionable relink plan' without disclosing whether it is read-only, what side effects it might have, or what the output looks like. It does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is so sparse that it sacrifices usefulness. It is appropriately sized for clarity but lacks the substance needed to be actionable.

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 complexity (two required paths, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what an 'explicit mapping file' is, what the relink plan contains, or how the assembly path factors in.

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 does not explain the two required parameters (assembly_path, mapping_path). An agent has no idea what these paths should point to or their expected formats.

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 action (build a relink plan) and its input (explicit mapping file), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like build_relink_map_plan or build_file_relink_plan, relying on subtle wording like 'grouped actionable' to imply uniqueness.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many similar relink planning tools (e.g., build_relink_plan, preview_relink_map_paths). The description does not mention conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.

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