relink_project_root

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'apply', implying mutation, but does not clarify whether changes are reversible, require saving, or affect the document state. It also does not mention any permission or side-effect details. The description is vague about what 'apply' entails, leaving the agent uncertain about consequences.

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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, though that information is minimal. There is no wasted text, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details.

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 the tool has four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many closely related siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks usage context, parameter explanations, and clarity on the apply operation. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters. It mentions 'matching component filenames' and 'new root' but does not map these to search_root, document_id, save, or relink_all. The agent has no information on what these parameters do beyond their names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 clear action (preview and apply) and resource (assembly relinks) with a method (matching component filenames under a new root). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the many sibling relink tools such as build_relink_plan or apply_relink_paths, which also handle relinking. The purpose is understandable but lacks the specificity needed to choose it over alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools. The description does not mention scenarios where it is preferred, nor does it state any exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description, which is insufficient given the crowded toolset.

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