Link

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, closed-world write operation. The description usefully adds where the side effect lands (a 'Related' section) and implies bidirectionality ('to each other'), but says nothing about idempotency, duplicate-link handling, or behavior when a note is missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the purpose and effect are stated immediately. It is arguably too terse for a 3-parameter tool, but that shortfall is captured under contextual completeness rather than structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. But with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, an unexplained optional 'note' argument, and opaque 'a'/'b' identifiers, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 carry parameter meaning. It implies 'a' and 'b' are the two notes but never states their format (title, path, or ID), and the optional 'note' parameter is left completely unexplained, which is the highest-value gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Link) and resource (two notes) plus the effect location ('Related' section), which is more than a restatement of the title. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'connect', so an agent cannot tell which linking tool applies to notes vs. people/entities.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., both notes must already exist), and no mention of the 'connect' sibling as an alternative. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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