send_contract_link

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not discuss permissions, destructive potential, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it loses one point for not balancing brevity with completeness.

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 the lack of output schema, annotations, and the moderate complexity of 5 parameters, the description fails to explain return behavior, error handling, or post-action state. It leaves critical gaps for agent reasoning.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description adds no additional context beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Send) and the resource (GoHighLevel contract link) with the purpose (for signing). It is distinct from sibling tools like send_message or list_contracts, though it could be more specific about the mechanism (e.g., email/SMS).

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, prerequisites (e.g., contract must exist, contact must have email/phone), or when not to use it. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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