link_cels

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the mode requirement for linking vs unlinking, and the side effect that edits to one frame propagate to all linked frames. It does not explain failure modes or reversibility, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the mode constraints. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

With 11 parameters but 0 required and 91% schema coverage, the schema carries the parameter burden. The description covers purpose, side effects, and mode constraints, which is enough to call it correctly, though it could say more about how the many range/frame/layer parameters combine.

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 91%, so the schema already documents the parameters (from/to ranges, tag, frames, layers, save, etc.) in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource (link/unlink cels) and goes further by explaining the semantic effect: 'several frames share one image (edits to one show in all)'. That is clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like copy_cel or update_cel, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives an operational constraint ('Linking needs live mode. Unlinking works in both modes') which implies when each action is available, but offers no routing guidance versus alternatives such as copy_cel or update_cel. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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