Connect online chat to website button

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

The description implies a state-changing action ('Link') but does not disclose effects such as overwriting existing connections, required permissions, or reversibility. The openWorldHint annotation provides minimal behavioral context, leaving the description to carry the burden, which it fails to do.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. While it avoids fluff, the brevity sacrifices essential information, making it less useful than a slightly longer description with parameter context.

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?

The tool has two parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and minimal annotations, so the description must explain parameters and return behavior. It provides almost no context, missing details about the id meaning, body requirements, and what the result of linking looks like. This is inadequate for effective 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'id' or 'body' at all, leaving the meaning of these fields entirely ambiguous (e.g., which ID is expected, what body contains). The generic parameter names provide no additional insight beyond the schema.

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 action (link an online chat) with a specific resource (a CRM plugin), which clearly distinguishes it from CRUD operations on plugins in the sibling list. However, it is slightly ambiguous whether 'CRM plugin' refers to a Kommo plugin or the website button mentioned in the title, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., setting up website chat), or when not to use it. The description solely states the action without any situational cues.

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