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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: deleting is reversible ('Re-creating the same edge later revives it') and the call may return needs_confirmation, implying a gated approval flow. That is real context beyond the structured fields; it stops short of stating permission requirements or exactly what the confirmation response contains.

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?

Three short sentences: the destructive scope first, the usage trigger second, the reversibility/confirmation caveat last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (edges only, pages stay) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does flag the needs_confirmation outcome and its approval follow-up. Coverage is good for a single-edge delete; only details like idempotency on a stale linkId are left implicit.

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 100% — linkId sourcing, workspace rules and the approvalId flow are all documented in the schema. The description only echoes the linkId provenance already stated in the schema, so this is the baseline case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 edge from the graph') and immediately scopes it against the obvious confusion — the pages themselves survive, which separates it from compass_pages_delete. An agent can distinguish it from compass_links_create/update and the page tools 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rationale with concrete triggers ('the system isn't used by that workflow, the person left the team') and points to compass_page_links_list as the source of ids. It does not name the sibling alternative (e.g., compass_links_update) or state when not to delete, so it falls short of a 5.

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