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

The description adds useful practical details like bulk execution via `entity_ids`, which is not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior such as duplicate handling, whether existing links are replaced, or what happens when the target entity does not exist.

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 compact and starts with the core resource, but the combined action list plus '[Flattened action: link]' creates a structurally muddled message. It could be tightened to state clearly that this tool creates links and then explain each relevant parameter.

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?

With no output schema and virtually no parameter coverage in the schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It fails to specify how `entity_id` and `entity_type` interact with `data`, whether `data` is required, or what a successful link call returns.

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%, so the description does important work by explaining that `data` is a JSON object with `to_entity_id/to_entity_type` and that batch execution uses `entity_ids`. Still, it leaves `page`, `limit`, `filter`, and `account` unexplained, and it is unclear whether all listed fields are relevant to the link action.

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 identifies the tool as handling 'vínculos entre entidades' and gives a clear example of linking a contact to a lead. The '[Flattened action: link]' marker and tool name confirm this is the link operation, though the description also lists list/unlink actions, which causes some ambiguity.

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 intended use is implied through the example and the action field, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus kommo_links_list or kommo_links_unlink. It also does not mention prerequisites such as whether `data` is required when creating a link.

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