Создать быстрые ссылки

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a mutation) and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that it returns a set ID for ad linking — but says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, whether existing sets are overwritten, or side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return value. No filler or redundant clauses.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete and even compensates for the missing output schema by stating the returned ID. Only deeper mutation semantics (idempotency, overwrite behavior) are absent.

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% and the nested items are fully documented (title 30 chars, description 60 chars, href), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's '1–8' range merely restates the minItems/maxItems already in the schema, adding no new meaning.

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 ('Создать новый набор из 1–8 быстрых ссылок'), which disambiguates the ambiguous 'set_' prefix as a create operation rather than a bulk-set. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as list_sitelinks or delete_sitelinks, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description notes the returned ID is meant for attaching to an ad, which hints at the workflow (create set, then link to ad). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools.

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