create_channel_connect_link

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the link is private, needs no Convocore login, expires (default 30 minutes), and requires user action in a separate browser session. It also explains the messenger/instagram shared-page behavior and the two whatsappConnectionMode semantics, giving the agent clear expectations about the resulting link's lifecycle and verification requirement.

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 front-loaded with the action and user flow, then adds compact reference notes for channel-specific behavior. Each sentence carries operational value for either calling the tool correctly or instructing the user; there is no filler or repetition of structured fields beyond useful context.

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 still covers what the agent needs: it says a url is returned and must be shown to the user, that the user completes the connection externally, and that get_agent_channels must be used to verify completion. Combined with expiry and per-channel notes, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and follow-up.

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 coverage is only 25%, with just ttlMinutes documented. The description compensates by explaining the channel enum's behavioral meaning (messenger and instagram share a page and depend on a linked Facebook page/Instagram account) and both whatsappConnectionMode values (metaCloudApi default vs metaCoexistence for an already-used number). It also repeats the ttl default, tying it to link expiration.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a private link the USER opens to connect WhatsApp, Messenger or Instagram to an agent.' It states scope and audience (the user, not the agent), and the later mention of get_agent_channels clarifies this is the link-creation step, not verification or status checking, which separates it from siblings.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and how-to-sequence guidance: create the link, show the url to the user as clickable, tell them to return when done, then call get_agent_channels to confirm before claiming success. It also states what the agent cannot do (log in with Meta on the user's behalf), which prevents a common misuse.

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