indico_add_link

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

Annotations already declare the mutation nature (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so safety is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond this: it doesn't say the link becomes publicly visible, whether it requires edit rights, or that attaching is additive rather than replacing existing links. For a write tool it should do more.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the verb-resource construction leads and the clarifying examples follow immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a write tool with 6 parameters the description leaves gaps: no permission requirements, no indication of how session vs contribution targeting interacts, and no confirmation of idempotency. Adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 67%, with event_id, instance, session_id and contribution_id already documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by framing the three target parameters as alternative attachment points, but gives no detail on url format or title behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('link'), and enumerates the target entities (event, session, contribution) plus examples of link types (slides, recording, document). It's clearly distinguishable from all siblings, none of which attach links, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling.

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 alternatives, nor on how to choose between attaching at the event, session, or contribution level. No prerequisites (permissions, instance selection) are mentioned. Usage is only implied by the single sentence.

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