build-link

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is clearly non-mutating and safe. The description does not add much behavioral detail beyond the core purpose, but it also does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotations carry the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second states the required input combinations. The critical usage rule is compact and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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 URL-building tool with 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is complete. It captures the essential either/or relationship between conversation links and thread links, and the optional parameters in each branch. Nothing material needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by expressing the two mutually exclusive parameter groups and which parameters are optional in each group, which the flat schema alone does not communicate. The only minor issue is using snake_case identifiers (workspace_id) instead of the schema's camelCase (workspaceId).

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 uses the specific verb 'Build' and enumerates the exact target resources (threads, comments, conversations, messages). This clearly separates the tool from sibling tools like load-thread, create-thread, or get-users, since it is a URL-construction helper rather than a data-fetching or mutation operation.

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 a precise input contract: workspace_id plus either conversation_id and optional message_id, or thread_id with optional channel_id and comment_id. This gives clear context on how to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but no sibling performs URL building, so the boundary is implicit.

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