swebsy_link_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the concrete behavioral outcome for navbar links (sets page target, keeps href and active state in sync) and for plain links/buttons (sets href to ./slug.html). This is valuable behavioral transparency beyond just saying 'link a page'. It doesn't cover edge cases like overwriting existing targets, but for this tool's scope it 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 concise, consisting of three sentences, with the core purpose stated first. It uses no filler and each sentence adds relevant detail (purpose, parameters, behaviors, usage timing). It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand how to call the tool correctly. It covers purpose, parameter sources, behavioral outcomes, and typical usage. Minor gaps like error handling or effects on existing links are not critical for a tool of this simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% (both params have descriptions), but the description adds context beyond the schema: it tells the agent that targetPath comes from read_page and that page is an id or name. It also explains the role of targetPath as the link's location within the page structure, which helps the agent retrieve and pass correct values.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Point an existing link at a project page'. It also references the UI's 'Link to' picker, making the action concrete. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_page by focusing on linking existing entities, not creating them.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use after create_page to wire a navbar to the new page' and explicitly explains the context for different link types (navbar vs. plain link/button). It doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios, but it gives enough contextual cues for an agent to decide appropriately.

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