relink_from_map

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 discloses that the tool can both preview and apply, implying a mutation when 'apply' is used, but it does not state whether applying is reversible, whether it requires a saved document, or what happens to existing relinks. The 'save' parameter hints at persistence but the description doesn't explain the side effects.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise and readable, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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 tool that can apply mutations, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of 'save', the role of 'document_id', or what the preview output looks like. Given the complexity of relink operations and the large sibling set, more context is needed.

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 only explains 'mapping_path' implicitly ('explicit mapping file') and says nothing about 'save' or 'document_id'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess what 'save' controls and why document_id is needed.

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 ('Preview and apply') and resource ('assembly relinks from an explicit mapping file'). It distinguishes from siblings like build_relink_map_plan (which builds a plan) and preview_relink_map_paths (which only previews), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 have an explicit mapping file and want to preview or apply relinks. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like build_relink_map_plan or preview_relink_map_paths. The 'Preview and apply' phrasing gives some context but no exclusions.

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