accelo_create_asset_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully constrains linked_object_type to the supported values (issue, job, prospect, contract), but says nothing about permission requirements, idempotency, duplicate-link handling, or the response for this mutation.

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?

One front-loaded summary sentence followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds information and there is no filler.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs well but omits behavior an agent needs: permissions, failure/conflict semantics, and whether a link can be duplicated or must be unique.

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 compensate — and it does, documenting all six parameters, marking the three required ones, giving the unix-timestamp format for start_date/end_date, and enumerating valid linked_object_type values.

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 ('Create') and resource ('asset link'), and names both endpoints (an asset and another object). It is readily distinguishable from sibling read/delete operations like accelo_list_asset_links and accelo_delete_asset_link, though it never explicitly names them.

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 when-to-use guidance is offered and no alternatives are referenced; the sibling accelo_delete_asset_link and accelo_list_asset_links are not mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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