Clink MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the core behavior (releasing a claimed clink back to pending queue) but lacks details about permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the clink isn't claimed. The description is adequate but misses some behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by usage guidance. The parameter documentation is minimal but necessary. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides sufficient context about purpose and usage. It could benefit from more behavioral details given the lack of annotations, but covers the essential information needed to use the tool 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 only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining what 'clink_id' represents ('The clink ID to release'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format or constraints.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Release a claimed clink without completing it'), the resource ('clink'), and the outcome ('returns to the pending queue for another worker to process'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'complete_clink' by specifying this is for when you cannot complete the task.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this when you cannot complete the task') and distinguishes it from alternatives by contrasting with completing the clink. It provides clear context for choosing this over other clink-related operations.

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