hookmark_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it generates a URL, copies it to the clipboard, returns the assigned URL, and accepts specific input types. It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or permissions, but covers the core operation adequately.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states the core action, second explains the return value and connection to another tool, third clarifies input acceptance. Each sentence earns its place with essential information.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and what inputs it accepts. The main gap is lack of error handling or edge case information, but it's sufficient for basic use.

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 schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('/Users/you/note.md', 'https://example.com') and clarifying it accepts 'any URL', but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Generate', 'copy') and resources ('hook:// URL for a file or web URL'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on URL generation rather than connection, listing, searching, or removal operations.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool: 'Use this URL as a stable reference to the item when calling hookmark_connect.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool hookmark_connect and provides a specific use case.

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