plaid_link_token_create

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 only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits like token expiration, required authentication (client_id/secret), or side effects. The description omits that the token is used client-side and typically returned in the response.

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 at one sentence, but it could be more informative without being verbose. It lacks front-loading of key details (e.g., response token).

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 has 10 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value (a link_token) or next steps (e.g., using the token in a frontend flow). Given the complexity and lack of schema, more context is needed.

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 60%, with some parameters having descriptions (e.g., user_client_user_id, client_name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not augment parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a Plaid Link token') and the resource ('Plaid Link token'). It directly distinguishes from sibling tools like plaid_accounts or plaid_transactions by specifying the creation of a token to initialise the Plaid Link flow.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other Plaid tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a user) or when to call this before other operations. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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