link_to_goal

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool mutates state. The description adds little beyond that: it mentions 'link/unlink' which implies modification, but does not disclose what entities or DAGs are affected, whether actions are reversible, or any side effects of get_context. The behavioral transparency is weak given the tool's complexity.

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, compact sentence that leads with the primary purpose and separates the two main modes. It is free of fluff and front-loads the key information, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 (10 parameters, multiple actions, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain which parameters apply to which action, what the return value looks like, or how it complements the many sibling spatial tools. An agent would need to open the schema and infer usage, which is insufficient for such a multi-mode tool.

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 each parameter. The description adds a high-level context (entity/region association, goal-relevant slices) but does not clarify conditional requirements (e.g., which parameters are needed for each action) or relationships between parameters. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have filled the conditional-usage gap.

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 a specific verb ('associate') and resource ('entities or spatial regions' with 'state-memory task DAGs'), and also distinguishes a second operation ('extract goal-relevant spatial context slices'). It is not a tautology and differentiates from siblings by focusing on goal-DAG linking and context retrieval.

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_relation or query_entities. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions that should favor this tool. The action parameter (link/unlink/get_context) implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

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