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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds useful privacy context: it is anonymous and excludes location, prompt, city text, roast text, and account identifiers. It does not detail data retention or full side effects, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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 tight sentences with no wasted text. The card-only usage constraint is front-loaded and the anonymity detail follows immediately, making the description easy to parse.

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 six-parameter write tool with no schema parameter descriptions and no output schema, the definition explains purpose and privacy but not how to populate the required `tool` field or the optional event metadata. It is sufficient to tell the model not to call it, but not sufficient to invoke it correctly from the definition alone.

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 six parameters. The description only loosely maps to the event and link concepts, and does not explain the required `tool` parameter or the meanings of `puzzle_number`, `attitude_level`, or `conversation_id`, leaving most invocation semantics to the raw enum names.

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 and resource: record that the connector card was shown or a link was opened. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling model-facing tools by saying it is used only by the connector's card, never by the model.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition (card shown or link opened) and an explicit when-not-to-use condition (never by the model). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs to avoid selecting it in normal model workflows.

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