preview_relink_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does convey that the tool 'finds' candidates, implying a read-only search operation, and the word 'candidate' suggests no changes are applied. However, it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, what inputs affect behavior (e.g., whether a document must be open), or what the output looks like, leaving significant room for ambiguity.

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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose and method, and every word contributes meaning. This is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It omits return value expectations, side effects, differences from the many sibling relink tools, and the roles of relink_all and document_id. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on this definition.

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 for the three parameters. It only partially explains search_root via 'searching ... under a new root,' but gives no meaningful guidance for relink_all or document_id. An agent cannot infer what these parameters control or how they should be set from the description alone.

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 ('Find candidate component path updates') and a method ('searching for matching filenames under a new root'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from closely named siblings like preview_relink_map_paths or preview_file_relink_paths, so an agent must infer which specific variant this is.

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 usage: use when you need to preview candidate component path updates based on filename matching. But it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives, despite a large family of relink-related siblings. An agent is left to guess which preview/build/apply tool fits a given workflow.

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