Link Session to Doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool creates a link (a write operation) and returns an ok/reason dict, but it lacks information about side effects, idempotency, permissions, or rate limits. The failure reason is noted as 'generic; details in debug log', which is only moderately transparent.

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 concise (about 100 words), well-structured with a clear action statement, constraints list, parameter documentation, and return value description. Every sentence adds value, and the bulleted args/rets improve readability.

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's simplicity (3 string params, no output schema), the description covers the core action, constraints, parameters, and return values. It lacks examples, error handling details, and mention of uniqueness/duplication behavior, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'session_id -- LoreConvo session UUID'), adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it could provide more detail (e.g., format constraints or examples).

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 specific action (create a manual cross-product link from a LoreConvo session to a LoreDocs doc), distinguishing it from sibling tools like link_sessions (which links sessions together) or get_docs_for_session (which retrieves existing links).

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 explains the context ('manual cross-product link', 'accessible on all tiers') and lists prerequisites (target doc not in opt-out vault, both products installed). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, leaving some room for improvement.

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