link_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Re-linking replaces any previous link,' which informs the user about the overwriting nature. It also explains parameter semantics that affect behavior (e.g., launcher selects profile). It does not mention auth requirements or error handling, but for a simple link operation, the disclosure is adequate.

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 efficiently structured: it opens with the core purpose, then enumerates parameters in a readable list style, and closes with usage guidance. No sentence is wasted, and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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 purpose, parameters, re-link overwrite behavior, and usage context. It does not explain the output schema or potential errors, but an output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. The missing explicit task_id explanation and lack of cross-reference to unlink_session are minor gaps.

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?

Despite zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining four of five parameters: agent, directory, session_id, and launcher. It leaves task_id undefined, but its meaning is inferable from the purpose ('task to a task'). Given the coverage, this is a strong performance, though a brief note on task_id would make it complete.

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 the specific resource (AI agent session to a task), with the purpose of resumption. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'unlink_session' by implying the inverse operation, and it includes a clear call to action ('Call this when you start or resume work on a task').

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this when you start or resume work on a task'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to the alternative 'unlink_session' for removing a link, though the sibling name makes this obvious. This is a minor gap.

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