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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds real context the annotations don't: a persistent backlink record is created for a specific website and verification requires a separate tracking step. It still omits whether the call is reversible, what happens on duplicate hrefs (relevant given idempotent=false), and permission requirements.

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 compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing parenthetical about the panel is slightly awkward but carries genuine information about a follow-up verification step.

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 destructive, non-idempotent creation tool with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should clarify the required backlink fields and duplicate behavior. It covers the website targeting only, leaving an agent unable to tell what `href_follow` expects or what the call returns upon success.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it explains only 2 of 5: it clarifies that the website is identified by either id or uuid (an either/or relationship not expressed in the schema). It says nothing about `seliee_external_backlink_href` (the sole required parameter), `href_text`, or `href_follow` — the latter being a string whose values (follow/nofollow?) are entirely undisclosed.

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 ('Register a new external backlink') and names the scope target (the website given by `seliee_website_id` or `seliee_website_uuid`). It does not explicitly differentiate from list_external_backlinks / delete_external_backlink, but the create semantics plus the website scoping make the operation unambiguous.

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 only usage note is '(run `track` separately in the panel to verify it)', which describes an out-of-band manual step rather than when to choose this tool over siblings like semrush_backlinks or list_external_backlinks. There is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that a website identifier is effectively needed even though only the href is required) or when not to use it.

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