add_link

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully compensates by disclosing important behavioral details: tracking params are stripped, duplicates are skipped by default, and the creation-then-move workaround for collection assignment. These details go beyond a simple 'add' and help the agent understand side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Add a link') and uses two concise paragraphs. It avoids unnecessary words and conveys essential details efficiently. Minor structure improvement could be made, but it is well-sized.

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's complexity (5 parameters, behavioral nuance), the description covers the most critical aspects: duplicate handling, tracking stripping, and the collection workaround. The existence of an output schema relieves the need to describe return values. Omission of name and tags is acceptable as they are standard optional metadata.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to some parameters: it explains collection_id's behavior (move to collection or leave unorganized) and skip_if_exists (duplicate default). However, it does not explain name or tags, and url is only indirectly mentioned via tracking stripping. Partial coverage compensates partially but not fully.

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 'Add a link' as the primary action, specifying the resource (link) and the verb (add). It distinguishes from siblings like move_link and delete_link by describing specific behaviors such as tracking parameter stripping and duplicate skipping, which are unique to adding a link.

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 adding links and provides guidance on handling duplicates (skip_if_exists) and the collection parameter. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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