link_guardian_to_student

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that existing links are left untouched (non-destructive), that unlinking is destructive and not available in v1, and that write permission is required. It does not mention idempotency or behavior if the link already exists, but the provided information is substantial and context-rich.

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 compact and well-structured. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a crucial behavioral note and a clear argument list. No filler—every sentence earns its place, and the layout is easy to scan.

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 has an output schema (not shown, but indicated), so return values need not be explained. The description covers prerequisites, side effects, what it does not do, and parameter sourcing, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke this write operation correctly. The only minor gap is explicit sibling differentiation, but that's already handled in purpose clarity.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so clearly: school_id as 'School ID', user_id as 'Guardian's user ID (from list_parents)', and student_id as 'Student ID to link (from list_students)'. This adds source guidance, making parameter meaning and acquisition straightforward.

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 verb ('Link') and resource ('an existing guardian to an additional student'), immediately distinguishing it from creating a new guardian (add_parent) or editing one. The phrasing 'existing' and 'additional' makes the action precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly mentions a prerequisite (PS_ENABLE_WRITES) and clarifies that unlinking is not supported (deferred to website), which tells the agent what this tool cannot do. It also gives sources for user_id and student_id (from list_parents and list_students), which aids usage. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of add_parent if guardian already exists,' relying on implication rather than a direct contrast.

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