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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does: irreversibility, the exact blast radius (links break, existing bookings persist), the user-consent requirement, and an execution-context refusal case. That is precisely the behavioral disclosure an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible effect and its consequence before the routing and restriction clauses. The telegraphic style ('Only when the user asked') trades grammar for speed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, everything needed is present: destructive semantics, consent gate, sibling alternative, discovery tool for the identifier, and a refusal condition. Nothing an agent must know before calling 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'link' parameter already documents that a title, slug, or URL is accepted plus a pointer to list_booking_links. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond implying identity lookup, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete ... booking links') and immediately defines the material consequence: 'its address stops working (bookings already made stay on the calendar).' That parenthetical alone separates it from every other booking-link sibling, and disable_booking_link is named as the non-destructive counterpart.

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 precondition ('Only when the user asked'), names the alternative and why to prefer it ('disable_booking_link can be undone'), and adds a hard exclusion ('From an agent's own turn inside Caddie it's refused'). No inference required about when to reach for this versus the reversible sibling.

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