Warmlink

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result includes the 'whys and details' and the 'warmlink' for each entry, and that avoids are private to the user. It doesn't mention ordering or result size, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries content. The phrase "for each vouch and recommend" slightly re-states the opening list, making it mildly run-on, but nothing is wasted overall.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (vouches, recommends, avoids, with reasons and warmlinks) and the privacy constraint on avoids. Only ordering/count details are absent, which is minor here.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no filtering input is required.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "List the user's own vouches, recommends and avoids." The word "own" scopes it apart from sibling tools like vouch/recommend (which create) and from any tool that reads other people's data. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Use it when they ask what they have vouched for or ranked" gives a clear trigger condition tied to the user's intent. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., when to use a public profile view instead), which keeps it from a 5.

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

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the ranking logic (most vouched, then most recommended), the exact result cap of five, the returned fields (vouch/recommend counts, up to three member whys, named only when signed), and a commission disclosure requirement the agent must preserve. The 'named only when signed' detail is a non-obvious behavioral constraint an agent could not infer.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and input modes before the output and presentation rules, and every sentence carries useful information. The second sentence is dense with detail but not padded; it could be split for readability but nothing is wasted.

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, the description fully carries the return-value burden: result count, ordering, per-product fields, and the commission disclosure text. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and present results correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by supplying concrete example values that illustrate what a good 'need' string looks like and by reinforcing the five-result ceiling tied to max_results. It does not add format or edge-case guidance beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find software Warmlink members vouch for') plus the two input modes (a need or a category) with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like my_vouches, vouch, and verify, which deal with the member's own vouches rather than discovery.

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?

Gives concrete examples of acceptable inputs ('CRM for a 5-person agency' vs 'Email Marketing'), making the need-vs-category distinction actionable, and instructs how to present results. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling (e.g., my_vouches) over this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for disclosing the downstream consequence beyond the annotations: the user is prompted to sign in again before anything else, possibly as a different account. It stops short of describing session/token revocation scope, which keeps it from 5.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence second – a sensible ordering. The closing clause 'possibly as someone else' is slightly loose but conveys real behavior, so it earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description provides the essential extra fact an agent needs: the user must re-authenticate immediately afterward. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. whether other sessions or cached credentials are affected).

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly says nothing about inputs rather than inventing them.

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 ('Sign the user out of Warmlink'), which is unambiguous and distinct from all listed siblings (vouch/withdraw/verify). It falls short of 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling (withdraw), though no sibling is genuinely confusable here.

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 word 'here' implies this is the tool to invoke for ending a session, and the description explains the post-condition (a forced re-login). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no confirmation requirement, and no mention of alternatives for session management.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: exactly what comes back (vouch/recommend counts, up to three 'whys' named only when the member signed, a link), the empty-result behavior ('Says so when the product has no signals yet'), and a downstream obligation to preserve the link and commission disclosure. That is real disclosure beyond the structured fields, though permissions/rate-limit behavior is unaddressed.

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?

Four tight sentences: purpose and input first, then return shape, then the empty case, then the presentation constraint. No filler or restatement of the title, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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, the description fully compensates by describing the return payload, the no-signal case, and the display requirement. For a single-parameter read-only lookup, an agent has everything needed to call it and to handle the result correctly.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the name-or-URL form including examples. The description's 'by name or website URL' restates that without adding format, normalization, or ambiguity-resolution guidance (e.g. what happens on a partial or misspelled name).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Look up one software product on Warmlink') plus the accepted identifiers (name or website URL) and the cardinality constraint ('one'). This clearly separates it from siblings like vouch, recommend, and my_vouches, which act on the caller's own data rather than looking up a product.

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 lookup framing implies when to call it, and the scope word 'one' signals it is not a batch or search-list tool. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. use vouch to add a recommendation, my_vouches to see your own) or states an exclusion, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: vouch and recommend show the user's name unless they ask otherwise, avoid is never public, optional usage details may be asked once, and re-calling vouch for the same product adds details without changing anything else. These details clarify visibility, follow-up behavior, and idempotent-style saving in a way the annotations do not.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers in usage conditions, visibility rules, optional-field handling, and repeat behavior. Despite its length, each sentence carries operational guidance that is not redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 seven-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: it covers when to use it, what is saved, privacy implications, optional details, follow-up prompting, and repeat-call behavior. The mention that the result lists missing details compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters, including enums and length limits. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by explaining visibility defaults for `show_name`, privacy for `avoid`, and that `role`, `how_long`, and `still_using` are optional details the agent may ask about once.

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: save the user's own vouch, recommend, or avoid for a software product, with their why in a sentence. It is clear about what is being saved, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling tool `recommend`, even though the same word appears in the enum and description.

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 a clear usage condition: only use it when the user asks to vouch, recommend, or avoid something in their own words. It also explains follow-up behavior when optional details are missing and when the user calls it again, but it does not name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use this one.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the narrow framing of the answer (the signed-in member) and says nothing about behavior when no session exists or what the result contains — relevant since no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to the scope statement.

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 trivial zero-param read tool the description is adequate, but with no output schema the agent still doesn't know the shape of the response (e.g., member id, display name) or the failure case when unauthenticated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed; nothing further is required.

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 sentence names a specific outcome — the Warmlink member the user is currently signed in as — with a clear verb (say/return) and resource (signed-in member). It is distinct from siblings like my_vouches or sign_out, though it doesn't explicitly reference them.

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?

'here' hints that the answer is scoped to the current Warmlink context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Usage is only inferable from the tool's obvious nature as an identity check.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: a later vouch restores the record. It does not say what happens if the user has no vouch on that product, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is removed and scoped to the user's own entry, followed by the usage condition and the reversibility note. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations that carry the destructive/idempotent profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The only missing piece is error behavior when no matching vouch exists.

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 single 'product' parameter is fully documented as a name or URL, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further detail on accepted product formats or lookup behavior, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (remove/withdraw) plus the exact resource and scope: the user's own vouch, recommend or avoid on Warmlink. It's immediately clear what the tool operates on, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling (e.g. my_vouches) it contrasts with.

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?

"Only when they ask to remove, withdraw or delete it" gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly excludes incidental rewrites. No alternative tool is named for the case where the user wants to see or change rather than remove a vouch.

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