Create a link for a partner

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the title - no note that the partner must pre-exist, what happens on duplicate slugs, or that the request requires confirmation. It merely restates the purpose.

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 compact sentence that is front-loaded with the verb. It is efficiently sized, though it is arguably so terse that it borderlines on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and many overlapping sibling tools, this description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, the relationship to upsert_partner_link/create_link, and any behavior of key parameters like confirm or partnerId/tenantId exclusivity.

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 10 parameters (key, url, account, confirm, payload, linkProps, partnerId, tenantId, etc.) are fully documented in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Create a link for a partner') and adds the scoping qualifier 'enrolled in your program', which distinguishes it somewhat from the generic create_link sibling. However, it never names or contrasts with the closely related upsert_partner_link or create_link, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many link-creation siblings (create_link, upsert_partner_link, bulk_create_links). The only hint is the 'enrolled in your program' precondition, which is not framed as a decision rule.

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