log_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that status can be 'placed (verified live), unverified, manual or failed', which is useful, but it does not state whether this is a write operation, any permissions required, the side effects, or the response format. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise and structured effectively, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the required fields, the meaning of most parameters, any return values, or the expected behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It only mentions the 'status' values but provides no meaning for slug, target_url, live_url, notes, or anchor_text. This is a severe gap for a tool with no schema descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Record' and identifies the resource as 'a link you placed', with status options that clarify the action. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like build_link and verify_link by focusing on logging rather than creation or verification, though it does not name alternatives.

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 usage for recording placed links but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusions or conditions. An agent would have to infer that this is for logging placements, with no comparison to other tools.

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