link_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions the return format (success status and link_id) but does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, idempotency, permissions, or what happens when linking a file region that is already linked. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essentials (action, parameters, return value). However, it omits failure responses, edge cases, and any constraints on file links, leaving some critical usage questions unanswered.

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 schema descriptions are trivial ('item_id parameter'), but the description's Args section adds real meaning: 'The item to link the file to', 'Relative path to the file', and optional line numbers. It clarifies purpose and optionality, compensating for the low-quality schema descriptions.

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 a file (or file region) to an item.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like unlink_file and get_item_files, which reverse or query the linking operation.

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 usage context is implied by the purpose: use when you want to associate a file with an item. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, such as when to prefer unlink_file or how this relates to get_item_files.

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