create_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes creation, notes automatic default template selection, and specifies the return value (short URL). It does not cover authorization or potential issues like custom code conflicts, but provides sufficient context for a creation tool.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and features; the second adds critical default behavior and output. Front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

Given 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers general purpose and outcome but omits details like required parameters (none), uniqueness constraints, or parameter relationships. It is adequate but leaves gaps for complex usage.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It summarizes parameter categories (device URLs, UTM, targeting, etc.) and clarifies template fallback behavior. However, with 15 parameters, a brief list lacks depth for many fields like projectId or customCode constraints, providing only marginal improvement over the schema.

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 'Create a new deep link in LinkForty' with a specific verb and resource. It lists supported features (device-specific URLs, UTM parameters, targeting rules, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bulk_create_links and update_link.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies creation context but lacks guidance on scenarios favoring this over bulk_create_links or update_link. The mention of template default fallback is a behavior note, not usage direction.

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