affiliate_linkconnector_verify_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool calls a minimal authenticated endpoint and explicitly describes the return shape: '{ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}'. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the nature of verification strongly implies it, and the return format adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and mechanism; the second provides usage timing, return format, and a pointer to a related tool. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what the result looks like, and how it fits into a broader diagnostic workflow. The missing output schema is compensated by the explicit return type in the 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?

The input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters because none exist, and it does not introduce any confusing parameter-related terminology.

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's function: 'Verify the configured credentials for LinkConnector are valid by calling a minimal authenticated endpoint.' It uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (LinkConnector credentials), and differentiates from sibling verify_auth tools by explicitly naming the network and the endpoint type.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also references a complementary tool, 'pair with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check,' which helps the agent decide between alternatives.

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