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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds materially important behavior beyond them: the delete is edge-only (pages survive), the edge can be revived by re-creating it, and the call may return `needs_confirmation` (matching the approvalId flow in the schema). Reversibility and the confirmation gate are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope, then the decision rule, then the id source and reversibility note. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no padding.

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 destructive, 3-param tool with full schema coverage, destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the decision criteria, the confirmation/approval path, and reversibility. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 all three parameters (linkId, workspace, approvalId) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that link ids come from compass_page_links_list, which the schema already says — baseline 3 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?

States a precise verb and resource — 'Deletes one edge from the graph' — and immediately disambiguates scope with '(the pages stay)'. It is clearly distinguishable from its siblings compass_links_create, compass_links_update, and compass_page_links_list.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('only when a connection was never true... recorded by mistake') and an explicit when-NOT-to-use case, naming the alternative tool and its parameter ('end it with compass_links_update validTo instead, so the history stays'). This is textbook routing guidance.

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