Link Entries

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens on a duplicate link (non-idempotent hint makes this critical), whether the relationship type is free-form, or what happens if an endpoint is missing. For a 16-parameter mutation with zero required fields, this is a substantial behavioral gap.

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 filler, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by precision; a 16-parameter tool warrants more structure than one clause.

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 not be explained, but the description never addresses the gap that no parameters are required despite 'between two entries' implying two are needed. With 16 loosely-related alias parameters and 13% schema coverage, the description leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call.

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 13% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The schema exposes roughly a dozen competing aliases for the same concept (to/to_id/target_id/to_entry_id, from/from_id/source_id/from_entry_id, rel/type/relationship_type) with zero guidance on which set is canonical — only two params carry any hint. This is exactly the case where the description had to compensate and did not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a relationship between two journal entries'), which is clearly understandable. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the sibling team_link_entries, so an agent has no basis for choosing between the two without inspecting schemas.

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 mention of prerequisites (do both entries need to exist? must they be in the same workspace?), and no mention of alternatives such as team_link_entries or visualize_relationships. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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