kiwi_add_execution_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Attach' without explaining side effects, permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. It does not contradict annotations, but it leaves the agent without important context about the mutation it is performing.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds semantic value, and the core action and object are immediately clear.

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 tool with no annotations and an undocumented schema, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent to call it correctly. The purpose is clear, but the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance leave material gaps.

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 for undocumented parameters. It contextually describes 'url' as an external bug/evidence link, but says nothing about the meaning or allowed values of 'name' or 'is_defect', and only indirectly implies execution_id through the tool name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') with a concrete resource ('external URL') and target ('test execution'), making the action unambiguous. It also clarifies the URL's role as bug link or evidence, distinguishing this from sibling tools that add comments, attachments, or tags.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_execution_comment or add_run_attachment. The description states only what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection context from the tool name alone.

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