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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds concrete destruction scope (only the traced path disappears), failure semantics (unknown id is REFUSED with nothing written), absence of dry run and undo, and two concrete recovery routes (re-trace with link_field_lineage, or restore_version which replaces the whole schema). That is materially more than the annotations provide.

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?

Every clause carries information — scope, alternatives, error behaviour, recovery — with no filler. It is a single dense paragraph of long multi-clause sentences, which slightly hurts scannability, but nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers destruction boundary, error path, irreversibility, and recovery options. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide or invoke safely is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces that `id` is the value previously returned/passed to link_field_lineage, but adds nothing about expectedProjectId's override-and-refuse behaviour beyond what the schema says.

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 ('Deletes one lineage link by its id') and immediately scopes what is and is not affected: the source block/field and target field are untouched. That scope statement alone separates it from delete_field and delete_data_source without opening any 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?

Gives the fitting case ('a link traced wrongly or a data flow that no longer exists') and explicitly routes three sibling behaviours elsewhere: mark_field_pii for PII flagging, delete_field for removing a field with its links, delete_data_source for removing a whole source block. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered with named alternatives.

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