Create document template fill link

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that it creates an instance and returns a public URL, and mentions optional pre-filling. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., creating a persistent record), or error conditions. The core mutation is implied but not fully elaborated, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and key rationale, then adding optional parameters. It is efficient with no filler, though the parameter mention is compressed into a single clause. It remains appropriately sized and structured.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete. It does not enumerate all parameters, describe the return value beyond (a public /form/ URL), or address potential errors or prerequisites. The description covers the core idea but leaves significant gaps for even moderate complexity.

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 0%, so the description must heavily compensate. It only mentions contactPhone, leadId, and variables explicitly, leaving language, documentName, expiresInDays, and templateId (though templateId is implied) unexplained. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool; the agent would lack clear definitions for several fields.

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 'Generate' and resource 'distributable fill link for a document template', explaining the underlying need (templates lack static links). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_form_link or get_signature_link by focusing on document templates and fill-only instances, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool accomplishes.

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?

It explains the context of use: 'A template has no single static link' and that this creates a fill-only instance to share with the customer. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, the rationale guides the agent on when to invoke this tool versus others. No exclusions are provided, but the purpose is clear enough for correct selection.

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