Create a link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses automatic title fetching, preservation queueing, duplicate-link failure, collection auto-creation, SSRF-related URL refusals, and the private-LAN archive limitation. These are exactly the side effects and edge cases an agent needs to anticipate.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action, then covers defaults, failure modes, and URL restrictions in a logical order without repetition or filler. The length is justified by the tool's behavioral complexity.

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 write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers required input behavior, optional parameters, side effects, error conditions, and boundary cases. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and to interpret likely failures without needing undocumented return details.

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 coverage is high (83%), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the effect of omitting collection_id/collection_name, what 'Unorganized' means, how duplicate prevention surfaces as a 409, and why some URLs are rejected despite passing schema validation. This supplements the schema's parameter descriptions usefully.

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 opens with 'Saves a bookmark', a specific verb plus resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_link, delete_link, and get_link. It also adds meaningful scope details (fetching, preservation queueing, optional collection placement) that remove ambiguity about what 'create link' actually does.

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 gives strong contextual guidance: it explains when collection_id/collection_name are needed, what happens without a collection, and when a request will fail with HTTP 409. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use X instead', but the creation-focused context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over update_link or bulk operations.

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