Link Board Items Workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a workflow (not a direct API call) with an ordering requirement ('Hard gate') and clarifies that no write or discovery occurs. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the key 'When to use' statement and then the hard gate. It is slightly verbose with parenthetical examples but each sentence adds useful information. Could be tightened but remains well-structured.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, ordering constraints, and behavioral traits. It names relevant sibling tools for context. No gaps remain.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so schema_description_coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not. No additional value or deficit.

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 specific verb+resource: 'link board items workflow' and clearly defines its scope as 'any board-relation / cross-board linking task.' It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the hard gate and that it is read-only, avoiding confusion with tools like get_board_items_page or change_item_column_values.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('any board-relation / cross-board linking task') and when-not ('No discovery, matching, or write happens first'). It gives a hard gate ordering constraint: 'you MUST call this BEFORE get_board_items_page, or change_item_column_values in the same turn.' This clearly guides agent decision-making.

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