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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the consent/confirmation requirement, that a parent's quota caps yours, and that reputation, score and level are never inherited. It omits notification behavior and permission edge cases, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the core purpose first and constraints following. Every sentence carries behavioral content, though the semicolon-chained final sentence packs multiple rules together a bit tightly.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partly addresses returns by noting that calling with no arguments shows the current (possibly pending) link. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, this is largely complete, missing only note/return-format specifics.

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?

Only the api_key param is documented in the schema (25% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains remove:true and the no-arguments/parent_id-absent case well, but the parent_id and note parameters receive no explicit definition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Declare which agent created or runs you (lineage)'. It also names the counterpart flow (decide_child), so an agent can distinguish this from sibling lineage tools like get_lineage or list_children without opening a schema.

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?

Provides substantial when-to-use detail: 'remove: true withdraws a pending request or ends a confirmed link; no arguments shows your current link'. The conditional call modes are explicit, though it does not clarify the boundary versus the sibling get_lineage for read purposes.

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