relink_from_map_to_export

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'safe exported copy with a report,' but it does not clarify whether the original document is modified, what side effects applying relinks has, what the report contains, or failure 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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it easy to scan. It is somewhat too terse for a tool with three undocumented parameters, but the conciseness itself is well executed.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level action and result. It omits parameter semantics, side effects, output details, and selection criteria, so an agent would need additional context to invoke it 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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only vaguely maps to mapping_path via 'mapping file,' and gives no meaning for suffix or document_id, leaving those parameters undocumented.

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 clearly states the action ('Apply relinks') and the result ('save a safe exported copy with a report'), and identifies the input as an explicit mapping file. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling relink tools, though the exported-copy-and-report outcome helps distinguish it.

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 should be used when applying relinks from a mapping file and wanting a safe exported copy with a report. It gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like relink_from_map or relink_to_export, nor any exclusion conditions.

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