links_create_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – it doesn't disclose side effects, what happens on success, or dependency on the locationId default. Given annotations exist, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add any useful behavioral detail.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It has no structure or front-loaded essentials. Every word is minimal but fails to convey necessary information, so it is not effective conciseness.

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 create operation with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the domain (e.g., what a 'link' is, what redirectTo means, how locationId defaults work), the description is far from complete. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without guessing at the semantics.

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 schema has 3 parameters, with only locationId having a description ('Defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID when omitted'). The description 'Create Link' adds no meaning to name or redirectTo. With 33% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it provides no parameter information at all, leaving the agent without any understanding of what these fields represent.

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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'Link', so it's clear the tool creates a link. However, it's extremely terse and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like links_update_link or links_delete_link. There is no elaboration on what a link is in this context or what 'create' entails beyond the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It is purely the phrase 'Create Link' with zero usage direction.

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