keel_add_evidence_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description correctly carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a meaningful limitation: multipart file upload is unsupported by this stdio server and routes the user elsewhere. It could additionally state what the tool returns or what happens on duplicate links, but the disclosed constraint is valuable and accurate.

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 compact sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds the critical limitation and alternative. Every sentence earns its place and the key scope constraint is front-loaded.

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 simple link-attachment tool, the description covers what the tool does, its scope, and its main exclusion. The parameter schema covers the remaining invocation details. It does not describe response/return behavior, but no output schema exists and the action is simple enough that this is not a significant gap.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions, so the schema-description coverage is high. The tool description adds only that a control target is optional, which is already visible in the schema. It does not clarify the difference between controlId and controlKey, but the schema descriptions handle that adequately.

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 a specific verb+resource pair ('Attach a URL as evidence') and immediately scopes itself to link-only evidence, distinguishing it from general evidence creation or file upload tools. It also names the optional control target. This is clearly differentiated from sibling evidence/control tools.

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 (link evidence only) and when not to use it (file evidence), and names the alternatives: the Keel app or the REST API. That is an explicit when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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