link_entities

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

The description thoroughly discloses side effects (integration, canonicity, entity-level checks, returning hard_violations, stopping ALIAS questions). Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral details beyond this.

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 informative but slightly verbose. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear structure for the two modes. Some sentences could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers the tool's return value (hard_violations), side effects, and relationship to answer_question. However, it lacks explanation for the 'branch' parameter and does not mention prerequisites or reversibility, which would be helpful given the complexity.

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?

The description explains the 'same' parameter in detail and implies the roles of 'a' and 'b' as entity names. However, the 'branch' parameter is not explained, and schema coverage is 0%. The added meaning for three out of four parameters partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool is for explicitly declaring identity of two names (entities). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like answer_question by being an active declaration rather than a query. The two modes (same=True/False) and their effects are well explained.

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 explains when to use each mode (declaring same identity or different identity) and mentions it is used actively without waiting for ALIAS questions. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with alternatives like answer_question, leaving room for ambiguity.

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