workiva_create_destination_link

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the proven range-link flow with exact endpoint and body shape, flags row/column as deprecated, and reveals the dead legacy endpoint. This gives the agent concrete behavioral expectations beyond a simple 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?

The description is lengthy but highly organized: a one-sentence purpose, an Args breakdown, and a targeted NOTE for the table branch. Every sentence adds necessary detail for a complex tool with 10 parameters, so there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 10 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers prerequisites, branch-specific flows, deprecated behaviors, and the exact API call, leaving the agent with all needed context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 Args section explains every parameter in detail, including branch-specific requirements (source_range_link/source_table for table) and deprecations (row/column). Since schema coverage is 0%, this description fully compensates by adding meaning to all 10 parameters.

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 opens with 'Insert a destination link in a document or table cell,' a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes between richText and table targets, and references related tools like create_anchor, making the tool's function unambiguous even among many 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?

The description explicitly describes the table branch workflow (createSource → createDestination) and warns that the legacy insertCellDestinationLink path is dead, providing a clear exclusion. It also states prerequisites such as needing a source range-link ID and source table ID, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this function.

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