Link multilingual content items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., creates a relation, no content modification), reversibility, or permission requirements. It also does not clarify the behavior if prerequisites are not met.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and an example, with no superfluous words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 basic purpose and prerequisite, but lacks details on output, order sensitivity (source vs target), and relationship to sibling tools. Given no output schema, more context on expected results would be helpful.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'id' can be a full URL ('@id') and provides an example, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's example using a path.

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 links existing content items as translations. It uses a specific verb ('link') and resource ('content item as a translation of another'), but could more explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'plone_get_translation' or 'plone_unlink_translation'.

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 a prerequisite ('Both items must already exist') and an example, but does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings like 'plone_unlink_translation' or 'plone_get_translation', or mention when to avoid using it.

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