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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/overwrite profile is covered structurally. The description adds the genuinely useful partial-update semantics (omitted fields are preserved), but says nothing about reversibility of a URL overwrite or the fact that hiding is recoverable, which is the interesting distinction for a destructiveHint 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the mutation scope is front-loaded before the partial-update rule. Every clause carries information.

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 full schema coverage and four annotations present, the description only needs to add the interaction contract, which it does via the partial-update rule. It stops short of noting that link_id comes from get_my_page or that a hidden link can be re-shown, but nothing essential to a correct call 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 link_id, url, title, and visible are all documented in the schema, including the 'false hides the link without removing it' semantics. The description's mention of title/address/visibility merely mirrors the schema without adding format or constraint detail beyond it, 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 specific verb (Changes) plus resource (a link) and enumerates exactly which attributes are mutable: title, address (url), and visibility. The 'shows or hides it' clause implicitly distinguishes it from archive_link (permanent removal) and add_link (creation), so an agent can route correctly without opening the 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?

'Leave out what should stay as it is' gives a useful partial-update contract, which is real usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over archive_link for removing a link, nor when visible=false is preferable to archiving, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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