Link Team Entries

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description is consistent with them. The description adds the TEAM_DB_PATH prerequisite, but it does not explain duplicate handling, permissions, or side effects beyond 'create a relationship'.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the operation and prerequisite are front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity contributes to gaps captured in other dimensions.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with very low schema description coverage, this definition is incomplete: it doesn't explain parameter aliases, relationship semantics, or required/optional usage. Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, but the invocation-critical parameter context is missing.

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?

There are 11 parameters with only 9% schema description coverage; just workspace_id is documented. The description provides no meaning for the many ambiguous aliases (to/from/to_id/from_id/to_entry_id/from_entry_id) or for relationship_type and project_number.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a relationship between two team entries'), and the 'team' qualifier differentiates it from the sibling link_entries. It does not name an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-routing.

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?

Only a prerequisite is stated ('Requires TEAM_DB_PATH'); there is no guidance on when to use this versus link_entries, team_visualize_relationships, or other relationship tools. The agent must infer the team-only scope from the name.

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