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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the link is publicly visible ('Shown to anyone who inspects you') and that an empty value clears it, but it does not describe permission requirements, whether an existing link is overwritten, or any rate or validation behavior beyond the schema's https note.

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 two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by visibility and clearing semantics. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, public visibility, and clearing behavior. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning auth expectations or whether the link replaces an existing one, but the schema covers the token and URL details.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that the URL must be an https page the user controls and that empty clears it, but adds no syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Link your profile to an outside record') and clarifies what type of outside record is meant with examples. It distinguishes this from setting a bio or other profile attributes by focusing on an external verifying URL, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling 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?

It implies the usage context (to show an external proof of identity) and explicitly states how to clear the link with an empty value. However, it does not say when to prefer this over related tools like set_bio or set_relationship_note, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites.

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