Add Organisation Link

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it uses a public key, but does not disclose side effects, return behavior, or permission requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise: two sentences and an args list. The main action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without repetition 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and siblings for link management, the description covers the core action but lacks details on return values or expected outcomes. It is minimally viable but could provide more context.

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 input schema describes the 'request' parameter as a link request with publicKey. The description adds 'optional configuration', which is not in the schema description, providing additional semantic value. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the verb 'Links' and the resource 'another organisation into yours' using a specific method (public key). It distinguishes from related tools like remove_organisation_link and get_organisation_links.

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 implies usage when you have the partner's public key but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove or get links). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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