kommo_link

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the linking action but does not disclose reversibility, idempotency, permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence). It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure. While brevity is good, it omits critical details that could be added without becoming verbose.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., both entities must exist). A user would need to consult external documentation.

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 0%, meaning parameter descriptions are absent. The description only provides a high-level example but does not explain the meaning of 'entity' vs 'to_entity_type', or the role of the IDs. The enums are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value.

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 the tool links one entity to another, with concrete examples (contact↔lead, company↔lead/contact). This distinguishes it from create/update tools, though it could explicitly differentiate from similar association 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating a new entity or updating existing ones. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., entities must already exist) and when not to use it.

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