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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the first call does not place the link, it returns a recommendation; the second call performs the placement; and the tool returns a viewUrl for previewing. This is meaningful context that annotations alone do not provide.

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-structured with a clear 'TWO STEPS' organization that front-loads the critical workflow. Every sentence contributes necessary operational detail, and the preview types and optional overrides are summarized efficiently.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and a nontrivial two-phase flow, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the first-call recommendation, the second-call placement, layout options, override fields, and the returned viewUrl, leaving no major operational gap for an agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level meaning by explaining when displayAs should be omitted versus set, how url is reused across both calls, and that overrides like title/buttonName/description/style apply to the infobar layout. This goes slightly beyond the schema's individual field 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a link to the linked account's SmartSite'. It also clarifies the smart-placement behavior and two-step nature, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like swop_remove_link and swop_update_my_smartsite.

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 gives an explicit two-step usage protocol: call with just the URL to receive placement recommendations, then call again with displayAs to place the link. It also tells the agent to show previews and ask the user which layout they want. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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