Create a DeepLinkNow link

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

Annotations declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: link-limit quota consumption and the paid-plan/management-API access requirement. It does not address what happens on a link-path-rule violation or that repeated calls create duplicate links (non-idempotency), which the annotations only imply numerically.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by escalating guidance (optionality, use case, cost, prerequisite). The sentences are long and information-dense but each carries a distinct fact; nothing reads as 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?

For an 11-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, cost and auth prerequisites well enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing what the response contains (e.g. the generated path or link object), which is the one thing an agent cannot recover from the absent output schema.

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 every one of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema, including formats, maxLengths and the path-rule constraint. The description only re-lists the field groups in prose without adding syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Creates a link in the app that DEEPLINKNOW_API_KEY ... belongs to") and enumerates the optional facets it can set (custom path, link-page title/button texts, social preview, metadata, campaign). This clearly separates it from read-side siblings such as list_links and search-side tools. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it ("Creating links is optional: any path on the link domain already works") and when to use it ("for a custom preview or to group links in a campaign"). It also states prerequisites — paid plan with management API access — so the agent can pre-check feasibility.

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