create_review_link

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real value beyond that: the client needs no account, the link is delivered at a lazyrelay.com/review/<token> URL, and a plan must include review links. It doesn't clarify whether links can be regenerated or what happens on re-invocation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the client workflow. The URL format and plan requirement are secondary but relevant. Minimal waste, though slightly dense in the second sentence.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the outcome (a shareable review link at a concrete URL) and the plan prerequisite. Enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it omits whether the token is returned in the response versus only referenced.

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 label, brandLabel and expiresInDays are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax or format detail for these parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Create' and resource 'review link', then spells out the exact client-facing workflow (view, approve, request changes, comment) with no account needed. An agent can distinguish it from list_review_links and revoke_review_link without opening any 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 implies the use case (send a client a link to review pending posts) and gives a prerequisite ('Needs a plan that includes review links'), but never names when to prefer this over alternatives or states exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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