relink_file_from_map_to_output

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one behavioral detail: the operation happens 'through KOMPAS itself,' implying a real application operation. But it does not disclose side effects, file modifications, prerequisites, whether the assembly is saved, or what happens to the output path.

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, direct sentence with no filler words. It is efficient and readable, though it is compact to the point of under-specification, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 mutation tool with three required path parameters, no annotations, no output schema, zero schema descriptions, and many closely related sibling tools, a one-sentence description is inadequate. An agent cannot reliably determine what assembly_path and output_path should be, what distinct role this tool plays, or what response to expect.

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 gives meaning to mapping_path via 'mapping file' and loosely suggests a destination via 'copied assembly,' but it leaves assembly_path and output_path ambiguous and does not clarify their relationship or 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 names a specific verb ('Apply relinks'), a resource ('a copied assembly'), and a source ('an explicit mapping file'), so an agent can tell what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly differentiate it from the many sibling relink tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool: when relinks come from an explicit mapping file and are applied to a copied assembly. However, it gives no explicit alternatives, when-not-to-use conditions, or comparison with sibling tools such as relink_from_map, preview_relink_map_paths, or apply_file_relink_paths.

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