keepit_add_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It mentions an optional offline-save mode but omits permission requirements, behavior when the URL already exists, whether the operation is idempotent, and what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the core action before the optional mode. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why behavioral and contextual detail is thin.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the URL and a hint of offline saving, leaving tags, bundles, folders, and the offline format enum unexplained at the tool level. It is not sufficient on its own for an agent to call it confidently.

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 schema already documents url, name, tags, bundle, folder, format, and save_for_offline. The description adds only a vague nod to offline saving, which maps to two of the parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Add a web URL into Keep It") that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like keepit_create_note or keepit_import_file. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb; there is no statement of when to prefer this over keepit_import_file or keepit_create_note, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase "optionally saving for offline reading" hints at a mode but gives no guidance on when to choose it.

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