feature_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Record' and gives the rationale; it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, whether existing links are replaced, whether cycles are allowed, what gets changed, or what a successful response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 first sentence is a clear, front-loaded definition. The second sentence adds motivational/usage context that helps an agent understand why the tool matters, though it is not strictly operational. Overall, it is concise and well organized.

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?

Combined with the schema, the description gives enough to identify required fields and the core action. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits important context such as return values, duplicate/cycle behavior, and the relationship to related tools like feature_unlink or feature_blocked.

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 already documents id, depends_on, and cwd with helpful examples. The description reinforces the meaning of the dependency direction and the importance of the relationship, but it adds no new parameter syntax or semantics and leaves the 'note' parameter entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('Record') on a specific resource ('one feature depends on another') and clearly communicates the directed dependency relationship. The rationale about blocked high-priority items also differentiates this from sibling status tools like feature_ready or feature_blocked.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: before relying on priority order, because dependencies can block the highest-priority item and waste a worker. It gives useful context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using feature_unlink to remove a dependency.

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