linkding_create_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the genuinely non-obvious trait that omitting confirm yields a dry run rather than a write. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover return shape or non-idempotency implications.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action and endpoint. Efficient, though the telegraphic style ('POST /api/bundles/.') is slightly less readable than a single complete sentence.

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?

With nine parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what the dry-run returns versus an actual creation. It covers the write-gate but leaves the response and the meaning of a 'bundle' to inference, which is adequate but not complete.

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 all nine parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the confirm/dry-run rule already present in that field's schema description, adding no syntax or formatting detail beyond it.

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 ('Create a bundle') and even gives the underlying endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous against siblings like linkding_update_bundle or linkding_list_bundles. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Omit confirm for a dry-run' gives useful invocation guidance for the write path, but there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any preconditions/exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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