link_properties_with_expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool links properties but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it creates a dynamic relationship, modifies existing properties, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like affecting render times. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the outcome of linking properties, potential errors, or how the expression integrates with the properties. For a tool that likely involves dynamic data relationships in a composition, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a relationship between source and target properties, which is already clear from parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like examples or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('link') and resources ('two properties'), specifying it uses an expression. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_expression' or 'add_expression_control' by focusing on property linking rather than general expression setting or control addition. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all expression-related tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_expression' or 'add_expression_control', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing composition or layers. It lacks context about typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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