wisdom_link_answer

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Link' without mentioning side effects, persistence, prerequisites, duplicate handling, or return behavior. This leaves important mutation semantics undisclosed.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the core action and object pair are front-loaded. Every word is relevant, and the structure 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 no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or what kind of relation is created. For an agent deciding whether this is the right link operation, important context is missing.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented as 'Question fragment UUID' and 'Answer fragment UUID'. The description adds no significant semantic detail beyond restating these roles.

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 as 'Link an answer fragment to a question fragment', identifying both the verb and the involved resources. It is specific enough to convey the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like wisdom_create_relation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of wisdom_create_relation, wisdom_get_relations, or other fragment operations. The intended context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and terse description.

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