linkminer_set_favorite_link

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and requirements. It only states the basic action, omitting details about whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the link ID is invalid, or any authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence, which is concise and easy to scan. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies, lacking any detail on parameters or behavior. This is not the same as efficient conciseness; it borders on being too sparse. Score 3 reflects it's acceptable but not exemplary.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a generic body/query parameter, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context. It doesn't clarify the purpose of the body/query, when to set favorites, or what response to expect. Thus, the description is incomplete relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

All three parameters (body, query, link_id) are described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter values or how they relate to the 'favorite' setting, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Set a LinkMiner favorite link' identifies a specific action (set) on a specific resource (LinkMiner favorite link), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like linkminer_favorites and linkminer_delete_favorite. However, 'set' is somewhat ambiguous between create and update, but the intent is understandable.

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 provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having an existing link ID, or whether to use it for creating vs updating favorites. This leaves the agent without guidance.

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