Add link

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/open-world profile; the description adds substance beyond them: Milanote fetches the page server-side, the response echoes what was found (title null when unavailable), the free-plan 100-card quota applies, no one is notified, and undo is manual via the trash. That is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

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 lead fragment front-loads the artifact and destination before any detail, and the following sentences are all load-bearing (fetch behavior, return shape, quota, undo). Minor redundancy: 'added to Unsorted' is restated as 'on top of the board's Unsorted panel' in the very next sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the returned payload and null-title edge case, plus quota and reversibility. For a two-parameter mutation with no structured return contract, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are documented there, including the http(s) requirement and the list_boards/board-URL hint. The description adds only the implicit placement detail (new cards land in Unsorted), so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Link card for a web address... added to Unsorted') and pins the destination panel, which cleanly separates it from siblings like add_note, add_column, and add_todo_list. An agent can tell exactly what artifact this creates without opening the schema.

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 opening sentence plus 'as when you paste a link' gives a clear use case: saving a URL as a rich preview card. What is missing is an explicit contrast with alternatives (e.g. use add_note for plain text) or a when-not-to-use condition, so routing still requires inference.

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