link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that it appends a [[wikilink]] to the source note, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose edge cases such as what happens if the source note does not exist, whether the link is appended at the end, or whether repeated links are allowed, so the added transparency is modest.

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 exactly two sentences, uses active voice, and includes no filler. The key action and effect are front-loaded, 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 simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the core behavior and its relationship to graph_related. It omits some potential side effects, but the schema and annotations fill in the rest, so it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%: each parameter has a description (source, target, project). The description's mention of 'source note' and 'target note' maps to the schema but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a forward link') and the resource ('between two vault notes'), and elaborates by explaining it appends a [[wikilink]] to the source note. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like graph_related (which discovers connections) and write (which writes general content).

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 usage by noting that it 'enables graph_related to discover the connection', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like write or search. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so the context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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