Create Link In Bio

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

Goes well past the destructiveHint=true annotation by naming exactly what is replaced ('Replaces a free WordPress preview on the domain, never real hosting') and what is not charged ('Nothing is charged'). It also discloses a specific failure mode and recovery path: NAMESERVER_CHANGE_REQUIRED, ask the user, resend with agree_to_nameserver_change: true — behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its constraints, then prerequisites, error handling, and the paid upgrade path — a logical order with no wasted sentences. The pricing/SKU detail is dense but earns its place as the routing signal to create_hosting; the paragraph is longer than ideal for quick scanning.

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the gaps that matter: cost, destructiveness, prerequisite state, error code and retry, sibling handoffs, and the upgrade path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or route elsewhere.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description ties agree_to_nameserver_change to a concrete trigger (the NAMESERVER_CHANGE_REQUIRED error and the need to re-issue the call), which adds operational meaning beyond the schema text. domain and dry_run are left entirely to the schema, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Turn on a FREE Link in Bio page served on the domain itself') and immediately bounds scope with concrete limits (up to 50 links; no scheduling, animation, passcode protection or analytics IDs). This lets an agent distinguish it from create_hosting, which the description explicitly routes to for the paid tier.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Turn on a FREE Link in Bio page'), when-not (paid plan with 1000 links is bought via create_hosting with named SKUs), and a prerequisite check ('Check get_link_in_bio first: many .com domains already have a free page'). It also names the follow-up tools (update_link_in_bio_profile, edit_link_in_bio_link, add_link_in_bio_link) that complete the workflow.

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