Clink MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: visibility rules ('visible to all group members'), optional recipient functionality, and content length limits ('max 4096 characters'). However, it misses details like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after sending.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement, followed by a bullet-point Args section with essential details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameters, and basic behavior well. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. It could be more complete by addressing authentication or error handling, but it's largely adequate.

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. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'group' as slug or ID with an example, 'content' with character limit, and 'for_recipient' with purpose and format. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format constraints more explicitly.

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 specific action ('Send a clink') and resource ('to a Clink group'), with additional context about visibility. It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_inbox', 'claim_clink', 'complete_clink', 'get_clinks', and 'release_clink' by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or modification.

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?

The description provides clear context for usage ('Clinks are visible to all group members') and mentions an optional recipient parameter that changes visibility. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_feedback' or 'complete_clink', or any prerequisites for group access.

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