build_relink_map_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool 'builds' a plan, implying a non-destructive analysis, but it does not disclose whether the plan is persisted, whether it modifies the document, whether it requires file access, or what the output format is. The word 'actionable' hints at later application but the behavior remains underspecified.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and includes the key inputs. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but it is appropriately concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell whether this tool is safe to call, what the plan looks like, or how it differs from the many relink siblings. The presence of build_relink_plan, build_file_relink_map_plan, and preview_relink_map_paths makes the missing differentiation more costly.

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 that a mapping file is used, which maps to mapping_path, and that the document is selected or active, which maps to document_id. However, it does not clarify the format of mapping_path, whether document_id is required when no document is active, or what happens when both are absent.

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 ('Build') and resource ('grouped actionable relink plan') and mentions the input source ('mapping file') and target ('selected or active document'). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic relink tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 the tool is used when a mapping file is available and a relink plan is needed, but it does not state when to prefer this over siblings like build_relink_plan, build_file_relink_map_plan, or preview_relink_map_paths. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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