teamleader_link_contact_to_company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Link' implies a mutating action, but the description does not disclose what happens if the contact is already linked, whether the link replaces existing data, or what the response contains. This is a meaningful gap for a write operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and then the optional modifiers. There is no wasted wording or redundant detail.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and the schema covers all parameters, but with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of behavior details (such as idempotency, error conditions, or return value) leaves gaps. It is adequate for a basic linking action but not fully complete.

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 the schema already explains id, company_id, position, and decision_maker. The description adds only a slight restatement that position and decision-maker are optional, without introducing any new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Link a contact to a company.' It also names the optional fields (position and decision-maker flag), making the operation's scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling teamleader_update_contact_company_link, but the action of linking is distinct enough from updating or unlinking.

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 when to use the tool—whenever a contact should be associated with a company—but provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer teamleader_update_contact_company_link or teamleader_unlink_contact_from_company. No prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., already-linked contacts) are mentioned.

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