filoo_create_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation counts against daily creation quota and active link cap, suggests a precondition check, and states the return format. No destructive actions are implied, and the behavior is adequately transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return value, usage context, quota warning. There is no redundancy 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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values (short_url, link code) and the URL format. It covers usage context, quota considerations, and a prerequisite check. The parameter schema is complete, and the description integrates well with the overall tool definition.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions the return value. No extra semantics are contributed.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new short link on filoo' and lists the return values. It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools like filoo_get_link, filoo_update_link, etc., which serve different purposes.

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 specifies when to use this tool (e.g., 'shorten a URL', 'generate a QR-friendly link') and advises checking quotas with filoo_usage if unsure. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like filoo_update_link, but the context is clear for typical usage.

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