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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: the old link dies instantly for every holder, the new link grants read access to anyone who holds it, and portal settings/tasks/comments are preserved. It also discloses the confirm-gating behavior explicitly.

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?

Four short sentences with no padding, and the most consequential fact (old link immediately breaks for everyone) is front-loaded before the caveats.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the effect on the old and new link, what survives, the ownership requirement, and the preview-vs-execute flag. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

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, and the description's confirm explanation largely restates the schema. The only added nuance is the ownership constraint tied to boardId, so the 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?

The description names a precise verb and resource ('Replaces the secret in a project's client portal link') and immediately clarifies the consequence of that action. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_client_portal, update_client_portal, and regenerate_invoice_link.

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?

It states two concrete preconditions: the portal must exist and only the project owner may call it, which tells the agent when the tool is invocable. It does not, however, explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as update_client_portal or set_public_link, so the routing guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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