Roo — create shortlink

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the atomic attach-in-the-same-call behavior and the inline pre-rendered QR response when add_ons.qr is set. The nested schema descriptions add further transparency (re-sorting of waypoints/thresholds, fallback slug behavior, image reuse). Minor gaps remain, such as duplicate/error handling and exact response shape beyond the QR note.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action in sentence one, optional scope in sentence two, the atomic semantics in sentence three, and the QR-specific return behavior in sentence four. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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 complex nested-parameter tool with no output schema, all mattering selection/invocation information is present: what it does, what can be configured upfront, and a key response detail (QR image inline). The only real gap is that the generic return shape beyond the QR case is not described since there is no output schema to rely on.

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 the schema already contains rich, self-explanatory detail for every parameter, including the nested add-on objects. The description adds useful context around the add_ons parameter — specifically that passing it combines create + attach into one call — but it does not need to duplicate parameter semantics. 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?

The description states a precise verb+resource ('Create a shortlink that redirects to `url`') and immediately scopes the optional behaviors: custom domain, slug, and upfront add-ons. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling roo_set_* tools by emphasizing the single-API-call atomic creation, making the intent clear without needing to inspect 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 description indicates when add-ons can be configured (upfront) and the add_ons schema explicitly states the alternative path: 'When absent, you can still add these later via roo_set_* tools.' This is solid when/when-not guidance for the main decision an agent faces with a create tool. It does not explicitly mention roo_update_shortlink for the update case, though that is less of a selection concern here.

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