Add group link

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the authorization requirement, that the new link is appended rather than prepended, that nobody is notified, that the return value is the whole new list, and how to reverse it. The 'no confirmation needed' note is exactly the kind of operational guidance annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the admin gate, and every sentence carries information. However 'Admins only' is stated twice in a three-sentence description, which is a small but real redundancy.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, side effects, return shape, and reversibility. Nothing an agent needs in order 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%, so group, label, and url are already documented with format and length constraints. The description adds no syntax, default, or edge-case detail about any parameter, so the baseline of 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 ('Add a link to the group's sidebar') plus the insertion position ('after the existing ones'). The verb 'add' cleanly separates it from the sibling update_group_link and delete_group_link, which the description even names for the undo path.

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 explicit preconditions ('Admins only'), the equivalent manual path ('Settings, Links, Add'), and a confirmation policy ('runs without asking first') because it's undoable via delete_group_link. It stops short of naming when to prefer update_group_link over adding a new link, so it is not a full 5.

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