unulu

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the domain (unu.lu), providing an example that demonstrates the mapping to a subdomain, and mentioning that it checks availability for claiming. No contradictions detected.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: state the core function, give a concrete example, and provide usage context. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and why. The example and usage guidance make it complete. The output schema handles return details, so no further explanation is needed.

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?

The input schema already documents the handle parameter with constraints, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that checking 'joe' tells you if joe.unu.lu is available, clarifying the domain format and the intent of the parameter beyond the schema's simple 'handle to check'.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the exact resource: handle availability on unu.lu. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'not other platforms like Instagram, TikTok, etc.' and provides a concrete example ('joe' -> joe.unu.lu), making the purpose immediately clear.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to help users choose a handle before they visit the claim page.' It also clarifies the scope, explicitly excluding other platforms, which prevents misuse. This is direct usage guidance without needing to reference sibling tools.

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

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

Beyond annotations, discloses expiration behavior (expires in 1 hour unless claimed), response contents (assistant_message with URL and claim details), token persistence requirements (persist claim_token and claim_code_short), and duplicate handling (always update existing). No contradiction with annotations; openWorldHint aligns with the live URL behavior.

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?

Long but packed with actionable guidance; front-loads the core action ('Create a link-in-bio site...') and then provides ordered pre- and post-steps. Slightly verbose, but every instruction serves a purpose and is structured logically.

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?

Comprehensive coverage of preconditions, creation flow, follow-up actions, and state persistence. With an output schema present and detailed annotations, this description fully equips the agent to execute correctly without requiring external knowledge.

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 already describes all parameters (100% coverage), but description adds important usage semantics: how to construct URLs from handles, when to omit leading_icon for well-known social links, and permission requirement for emoji icons. This goes beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a link-in-bio site with a name, bio, and links' and specifies the unique output (live URL on unu.lu expiring in 1 hour). Distinguishes from siblings by noting duplicate-avoidance via updating existing sites.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions ('Do NOT call until you have at least a name and one link'), alternatives (construct full URL yourself vs asking user), and workflow (offer to find links, ask permission for icons). Also states 'Never create a duplicate site; always update the existing one', implying when to use the update path instead.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'No authentication required' and the expires_at semantics for claimed vs. permanent sites, going beyond structured data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by essential details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers input flexibility, authentication, and the expires_at behavioral nuance, making it complete for a simple read tool.

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% and already describes the site_id formats. The description repeats these formats without adding additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('current state of a site'), listing key fields and input formats. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (create/update/check_handle) as a read-only retrieval tool.

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 context: retrieving site state with flexible input forms and no auth. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read vs. write distinction is clear from sibling names and the description.

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

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: partial update semantics ('only provided fields are changed'), the destructive nature of links replacement ('Links replace the entire array'), authorization requirements, and return value (full updated site state). It complements the annotations without contradiction.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds operational value (preconditions, auth, replacement behavior, iteration guidance) without unnecessary filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers all essential operational aspects: purpose, prerequisites, authorization, destructive details, return value, and identifier formats. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return structure. It is complete for a complex update tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some useful context (e.g., site_id accepts URL/hostname, token alternatives), but largely reiterates schema descriptions. The mention of 'link ids' is not reflected in the schema's link item properties, which creates slight ambiguity.

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 verb and resource: 'Update an existing site.' It distinguishes from sibling tools (unulu_create_site, unulu_get_state, unulu_check_handle) by focusing on modification and providing update-specific guidance.

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 gives explicit when-to-use instructions, including always calling unulu_get_state first to avoid guessing link ids, and details the authorization workflow depending on lifecycle (X-Claim-Token vs X-Edit-Token), with a clear fallback to requestEditAccess. This is strong practical guidance.

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