Create a link preview (FigJam)

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

Annotations only cover mutability (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true) and open/closed world; the description goes well beyond them by explaining the two preview outcomes (EMBED vs LINK_UNFURL and how each is determined), the pre-fetch parent validation, the refusal behavior, and the exact response shape. It also discloses the editor-mode restriction, which annotations cannot express.

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 core action, and every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (preview types, refusal behavior, return shape, editor scope). Slightly dense with parenthetical clauses, but there is no filler and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 correctly supplies the return shape { id, type, title?, provider? }, and note that the tool mutates the document while saying nothing about the async/sync timing of the fetched preview — a minor gap for a tool that performs a network fetch. Overall it covers enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so every one of the six parameters (including the nuanced x/y defaults and the idempotencyKey retry contract) is already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to parentId indirectly ('the parent is checked'), adding no parameter-level detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas.

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 — paste a web link onto a FigJam board as a card — and no sibling tool overlaps with that function, so an agent can pick it out of a list of ~100 node/style/variable tools instantly. It also distinguishes itself from generic node-creation by naming the artifact it produces (a preview card).

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 closing sentence 'Editors: FigJam only, unverified' tells the agent the context in which the tool is valid, which is real routing information. It does not, however, name alternatives or contrast against a near-neighbour (e.g. importing an image or creating a code block), because none exists — so this is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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