Establish a validated link between two architecture blocks in a single call, choosing the link type and optional context while avoiding manual operations.
Connect two architecture Blocks with a validated Link in one simple call without crafting manual operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | calls | |
| actor | No | ||
| label | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| contract | No | ||
| sourceId | Yes | ||
| targetId | Yes | ||
| projectRoot | No | ||
| taskContextId | No | ||
| includeStructured | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Input schema / properties / taskContextIdAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says the link is 'validated' and avoids 'manual operations,' but gives no details about side effects, failure modes, permissions, or what happens to existing links.
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 a single concise sentence and front-loads the core purpose. Minor marketing phrasing like 'in one simple call' could be trimmed, but the structure is economical overall.
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?
For a tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It explains neither the validation behavior nor the roles of required and optional parameters, leaving an agent with too little to call it correctly.
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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It never mentions sourceId, targetId, kind, label, or any other parameter, leaving all 10 parameters semantically 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 clearly states the operation: connecting two architecture Blocks via a validated Link. It also hints at differentiation by noting this avoids manual operations, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like graph_mutate or architecture_link_suggest.
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 usage for creating a validated link between Blocks rather than manually crafting graph mutations. However, it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool, leaving some ambiguity among a large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.