Link Destination

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavior: the destination is taken from its current container, so the operation is a move, not a copy. This is significant and beyond the schema. It doesn't mention side effects like what happens if the destination is already in the target container or any permission requirements, but the move semantics are the core behavioral trait and are disclosed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds the crucial move-not-copy clarification. It's front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema (so return format is covered), and the description explains the core behavior. It covers the essential operational nuance (move semantics) and doesn't leave any obvious gaps for an agent to call it correctly. The only missing edge cases (e.g., destination already linked) are minor and unlikely to affect invocation.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It does clarify the overall operation related to destination_id (moving from current container), but that's operation-level, not parameter-level. Since the schema is 100% covered, the description doesn't need to compensate, and a 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: 'Link a Google tag destination to a container.' It also clarifies the move semantics ('so this moves rather than copies'), which distinguishes it from copy or other operations. The purpose is specific and unambiguous, and the behavior sets it apart from sibling tools like move_tag_id (which moves tag IDs, not destinations).

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 when to use the tool: whenever you need to move a destination to a container, and explicitly says it moves rather than copies, so you'd not use it if copying is intended. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion conditions. The context is clear but lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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