browserless_link_connect

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that connect returns a Stripe-owned authorization URL, disconnect removes the connection, and raw card details should never be requested. No contradictions with annotations; destructiveHint=true aligns with 'remove the connection.'

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler: the resource and action options are front-loaded, and the safety instruction earns its place. The description is easy to scan and directly supports invocation.

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 two-parameter enum-based tool, the description covers the available actions and a key safety constraint. No output schema exists, but the connect action's output (a Stripe-owned authorization URL) is stated; status and disconnect outcomes are sufficiently described for the tool's complexity.

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 already 100%, but the description enriches the action parameter by defining each enum value ('check availability', 'get a Stripe-owned authorization URL', 'remove the connection'). It also supplies an important safety qualifier about card details that is not in 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 states a clear resource ('Browserless Stripe Link wallet') and enumerates three concrete verbs (status, connect, disconnect), so an agent knows what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like browserless_link_checkout, but the wallet-management scope is specific enough to differentiate.

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 maps each supported action to its intended purpose ('status' for availability, 'connect' for authorization URL, 'disconnect' for removal) and adds the safety rule not to ask for raw card details. It doesn't explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, but within the tool the usage context is clear.

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