link_note_contact

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the note or contact doesn't exist, or if the link already exists). It is adequate but does not enhance beyond annotations.

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 an extremely concise single sentence of seven words. It front-loads the action and resources with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. Every word is essential.

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 simplicity of the tool (two UUID parameters, no output schema, straightforward operation), the description is complete enough. It clearly states what the tool does, and combined with the schema and annotations, no additional context is needed.

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 100%, with both parameters having descriptions ('Note UUID', 'Contact UUID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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 'Link an existing contact to a note' uses a specific verb ('link') and clearly identifies both resources (contact and note). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unlink_note_contact' and 'link_entry_contact', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used when you want to associate an existing contact with a note, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., link_entry_contact) or when not to use it. The sibling list suggests use for notes, but no exclusionary guidance is provided.

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