hcl_stage_link

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds little beyond the fact that a project is copied. It does not say what gets created, where the copy lands, whether an existing stage is overwritten, or what the 'reciprocal link' means operationally.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with the primary action front-loaded, but the brevity is achieved by omission rather than precision, leaving essential behavior unstated.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no parameter documentation and only weak annotation coverage, the description is far too thin. The presence of an output schema relieves some return-value burden, but an agent still lacks the context needed to invoke this safely and 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% across 7 parameters, and the description only obliquely accounts for a/a_port/b/b_port ('two free ports'). It never explains the difference between 'a' and 'a_port', what project_path or stage_name do, or how idempotency_key behaves, so the cryptic parameter names remain opaque.

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 gives a specific compound verb+resource: copying a project and adding a reciprocal link between two ports, which lets an agent separate it from hcl_stage_copy at a high level. It is not fully self-sufficient because it never explains what 'stage', 'a', 'b', or 'free ports' mean in this system.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be chosen over the close sibling hcl_stage_copy or hcl_stage_unlink, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer the use case from the name and one-line description.

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