vk_wall_check_copyright_link

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. It does not; it only mirrors the name. The word 'check' implies reading, but this is not explicit, and no safety or permission information is provided.

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 short (one word) but this is under-specification, not conciseness. Every sentence should add value; here, the single sentence is repetitive and uninformative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and one parameter with no description, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, prerequisites, or side effects. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'link' with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no explanation of its purpose, format, or constraints (e.g., expected URL format). The agent receives no guidance beyond the parameter name.

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 is a tautology: it only repeats the method name 'wall.checkCopyrightLink' without indicating what the tool does. No verb or resource is specified, and it does not distinguish from siblings like vk_wall_get or vk_wall_search.

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. The name suggests a check for copyright on a link, but no context or exclusions are given.

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