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

Beyond the lone destructiveHint=false annotation, the description discloses per-type default visibility (phone=private, IM tools=friends, rest=public), that public contact methods require explicit visibility plus confirmation, and that public links become visible to get_creator. These are non-obvious side effects and privacy consequences that the annotations do not convey.

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?

It is short and front-loads the append semantics and defaults, but the arrow notation and semicolon-chained clauses make it telegraphic and slightly harder to parse than plain sentences.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers login requirement, defaults, confirmation for sensitive visibility, and a verification step. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around duplicate-link handling and error behavior.

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 the schema already documents url, type, label, and visibility, including the per-type defaults and enum. The description restates the default-visibility rule, adding reinforcement but little information the schema did not already supply, so the 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 makes it clear that the operation is appending one of your own links (bot), and that it does not overwrite existing links. That distinguishes it by purpose from remove_profile_link or set_link_visibility, though this description does not name the sibling tools explicitly.

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 workflow sequence (get_my_profile → add → get_my_card) and a login prerequisite, which tells the agent when in a flow to call it. It does not say when NOT to use it or point to set_link_visibility/remove_profile_link as alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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