relink_to_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention previewing before applying and saving a 'safe exported copy', which hints at non-destructive intent, but it never states whether the original document is modified, what the report contains, or how 'safe' the copy is. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that applies changes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler: it names the three phases (preview, apply, save) in order. It is concise, though the terms 'safe' and 'report' add little concrete information.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost none of the context an agent needs to call it correctly. The required search_root is not defined, the suffix behavior is not explained, and the relink report format is unspecified. This is inadequate relative to the tool's complexity.

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 compensate by explaining any of the four parameters. It never mentions search_root, suffix, relink_all, or document_id, so an agent gets no semantic help beyond parameter names.

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 verb-plus-resource: it previews and applies assembly relinks, then saves an exported copy with a report. This distinguishes it from pure preview tools like preview_relink_paths and pure save tools like save_export_copy, though it does not explicitly name those 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 given about when to use this tool versus the many overlapping relink siblings such as relink_from_map_to_export, relink_file_to_output, or apply_relink_paths. The phrase 'preview and apply' implies a two-step workflow, but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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