build_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers rich behavioral context: status meanings ('placed means verified live; gated means a captcha appeared'), a concrete retry action (headless=false or skip), and explicit instruction to ask the user when gated. This goes well beyond what any structured field provides.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by edge-case status handling and user interaction guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 moderately complex with 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains status outcomes and captcha handling well, but it does not define parameters or describe the exact return format (e.g., what the 'method' looks like, how the proof screenshot is returned). Adequate for basic use, with clear gaps.

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 compensate. It only adds meaning to headless (via the retry guidance), while slug, target_url, anchor_text, and description are left undefined. Even required parameters like slug and target_url are genuinely ambiguous.

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 and resource: 'Build one backlink in a browser on this machine' with a clear scope (login-free sites: shorteners and open submit forms) and an artifact (proof screenshot). It also distinguishes behavior from the sibling get_method by noting that on other sites it returns a method to follow.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to login-free sites and tells the agent what happens on other sites ('returns the method for you to follow'). It does not name sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use/alternatives, so it stops short of the top score.

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