Alias cũ của cloud_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that this is a compatible alias and that cloud_link should be used for new integrations, which reveals its legacy/alias nature. However, it does not describe the underlying operation's effects, permissions, or response, leaving that to cloud_link's own definition.

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 two short clauses with no filler: it states the alias nature and gives routing guidance. Every word contributes.

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 zero-parameter alias with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it identifies the tool as a compatibility alias and directs new usage to cloud_link. The missing detail is the actual operation of cloud_link, but that is available in the sibling tool definition.

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 tool has zero parameters and the empty schema provides 100% coverage, so there is nothing additional for the description to explain. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a compatible alias of cloud_link and names the canonical sibling, which distinguishes it from sibling tools such as cloud_link and monapay_link. It lacks a specific operation verb describing what cloud_link actually does, so it stops short of 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?

It explicitly instructs to use cloud_link for new integrations, which is an explicit when-not-to-use rule and names the alternative. This makes the intended legacy-compatibility usage clear.

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