resources_embedLink

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether embedding copies the file into the document and breaks the link to the original, whether the change is undoable, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation on link references with zero annotation coverage this is a significant 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 padding, but the terseness reflects under-specification rather than economy — there is no second sentence carrying the routing or behavioral detail the tool needs.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter needs the description to do more than one line. Nothing about link preconditions, effect on the source file, or the resources_* workflow is conveyed.

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 coverage is only 50%: document_id is well documented in the schema (name or 0-based index, cites document_listOpen), but linkIndex has no description in either the schema or the description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered required parameter.

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?

Specific verb (Embed) plus resource (linked file) and target (the document), so an agent knows the operation type. It does not name or contrast with the sibling that reverses it, resources_unembedLink, nor say where the link must come from, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (an existing link, an open document), and never points to resources_listLinks or resources_getLinkInfo as the way to obtain a linkIndex. An agent must guess the workflow entirely.

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