clip_link_proxy

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 transparency. It does not disclose side effects, whether an existing proxy is replaced, permissions required, or the nature of the return value. The description only states the action without any behavioral context.

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 wasted words. It effectively communicates the core function without extraneous detail.

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, 100% schema parameter coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. However, it lacks any supplementary context about behavioral edge cases, such as whether an existing proxy is overwritten or if the path must exist. This leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter definitions. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what is already in the schema—it merely reinforces that the proxy is 'external,' while the schema already specifies 'Absolute file-system path.' Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('external proxy media file to a clip'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clip_unlink_proxy and media_pool_relink_clips by focusing specifically on linking an external proxy.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as clip_unlink_proxy or media_pool_relink_clips. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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