Create a grouped, actionable relink plan for a CAD document. Use it to identify broken references and organize step-by-step fixes in a clear action list.
Build a grouped actionable relink plan for the selected or active document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relink_all | No | ||
| document_id | No | ||
| search_root | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the tool 'builds' a plan and gives no information about side effects, whether changes are applied, required document state, permissions, or output behavior.
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 and starts with the action verb, so it is brief and front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it substitutes vague phrases like 'grouped actionable' for structure that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose.
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?
With three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain return values, how the plan is grouped, and how the document/selection is determined. It provides almost none of this, leaving a substantial gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.
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 mentions none of the three parameters: relink_all, document_id, and search_root. Since the schema itself provides no descriptions, the description completely fails to clarify what these parameters mean or how they affect the plan.
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 uses a concrete verb and object ('Build ... relink plan') and identifies a target document, but 'grouped actionable' is undefined jargon. It does not distinguish this from siblings like build_relink_map_plan, build_file_relink_plan, or build_file_relink_map_plan.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than the other relink-plan or preview-relink siblings. It does not explain what scenario requires building a plan, when relink_all is appropriate, or what 'selected or active document' means in practice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.