send_clink

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: clinks are visible to all group members unless addressed to a specific recipient. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as permission requirements, whether sending is reversible, or what response is returned. The disclosure is meaningful but incomplete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. It conveys the core action, the default visibility rule, and the optional parameter behavior without wasted words.

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 simple send action with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, visibility semantics, and optional recipient behavior. It does not explain error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the low complexity and the schema's completeness.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond paraphrasing the 'for' parameter as 'specific recipient' and reinforcing the group context. It does not introduce additional formats, constraints, or relationships beyond the schema.

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 a clink') and the resource ('to a Clink group'), with added detail about visibility to all group members and optional recipient addressing. This is specific and distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like get_clinks or complete_clink.

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 implies when to use the tool (when sending a new clink) and explains the visibility consequence ('visible to all group members'), which helps decide whether to set the 'for' parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for reading or managing clinks, but the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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