link_estimate_to_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. While it states the tool makes an estimate active, it doesn't mention whether an existing active estimate is overwritten, any required states (e.g., draft), or whether the operation is reversible. The return value is noted, but this is minimal.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, then lists args and returns in a structured way. The Args/Returns block is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds semantic labels.

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 two-parameter link operation with an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior and return type. However, it omits details about overwriting existing active estimates or any constraints, leaving gaps in operational context.

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 description explains both parameters as UUIDs and adds meaning by clarifying project_id is the target project and estimate_id is the estimate to activate. This goes beyond the bare schema, which only provides type 'string'.

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 uses a specific verb ('link') and names the resource ('estimate to a project'), and clarifies the immediate effect: 'making it the active estimate system.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling estimate tools that create, update, or delete estimates.

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 use case—setting the active estimate for a project—but doesn't explicitly contrast this with alternatives like create_project_estimate or update_project_estimate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when not to use it.

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