create_magic_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Requires API key' for authentication, which adds some context, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, rate limits, error handling, or what the magic link does upon creation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Create a magic link for owner claim. Requires API key.') serves a clear purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of creating a magic link (likely involving authentication and side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the magic link is used for, how it behaves, return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (chatId, offerId, message) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Thus, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a magic link') and purpose ('for owner claim'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'regenerate_magic_link' or 'regenerate_all_magic_links', which likely have overlapping or related functionality, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides minimal guidance with 'Requires API key', indicating a prerequisite, but offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'regenerate_magic_link' or 'submit_offer'. There is no explicit when/when-not usage or named alternatives, leaving the agent with unclear decision-making criteria.

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