Commander des backlinks (MyBack.link)

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that this is a real financial debit, that user consent must be obtained, that the API can return 403 purchase_refused, and that the order is recorded in history with specific codes. These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent needs to know before invoking a purchase action.

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 moderately dense but every clause adds operational value: real debit, consent requirement, failure mode, and history logging. It repeats the title and endpoint, but the endpoint is useful and the length is still justified for a purchase operation.

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 9-parameter purchase action with no output schema, the description covers the critical context: it is a real paid action, user confirmation is mandatory, failure can occur, and the order is stored. It does not describe the response format, but the provided behavior and endpoint make the tool adequately complete for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 all nine parameters. The description adds little param-level detail beyond restating 'Un article par entrée de urls', which duplicates the urls field description. This is the correct baseline when structured schema data carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Commander des backlinks' and 'ACHAT RÉEL débité sur le crédit MyBack.link', making the action unmistakable. It is clearly differentiated from read-only siblings like listBacklinkOrders by emphasizing that this performs a real purchase. The endpoint is also provided as confirmation.

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 explicit call conditions: show the user URLs, keywords, article count, and options, and wait for explicit consent before calling. It also mentions refusal conditions (purchase disabled or company cap reached). It does not explicitly name competing tools or state when not to use it, but the consent precondition provides clear usage context.

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