log_document_link

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals that no file is uploaded, stored, or verified. It clearly sets expectations about the tool's non-destructive, non-idempotent nature and the open-world hint (external references). No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured paragraph with key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 logging tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, and retrieval context (via list_notes/search_constituents). Only minor gap: no detail on note formatting or content beyond description.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds little extra parameter detail beyond restating the purpose. Baseline set at 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 tool logs a note referencing an external file, explicitly distinguishes from file uploads, and explains the API limitation. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_note by specifying it's only for hosted URLs.

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?

It explains when to use (when needing to reference a hosted file) and when not (no real attachment). It also mentions how the note can be retrieved (list_notes/search_constituents), guiding the agent on follow-up.

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