Добавить внешнюю ссылку

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the rendering effect of the link, which is useful, but says nothing about required permissions, duplicate-link behavior, error cases, or what is returned after the mutation.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the action comes first and the usage rationale second. Nothing is redundant with the tool name or schema.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, purpose and preferred usage are covered. However, with no annotations the description should say more about mutation semantics (idempotency, duplicates, permissions) to be fully sufficient.

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 100% and all three parameters (url, card_id, description) are documented in the schema. The description adds only the merge-request example for url and does not clarify the optional caption parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Привязывает к карточке внешнюю ссылку") with a concrete example (merge request). It differentiates itself from the comment path, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the update/remove/list external-link siblings.

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?

Gives a clear usage context and an explicit alternative: prefer this over a comment because the link renders as a linked resource and doesn't clutter the feed. No when-not guidance (e.g., duplicate link handling) is provided, keeping it below a 5.

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