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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by explaining the post-condition — the code stays retired and can never resolve again, rather than being freed for reuse — plus the 'Free.' pricing note. It stops short of stating whether deletion is recoverable, but the added mechanics go beyond the annotations.

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, each carrying distinct information (action, post-condition, cost), with the permanence warning front-loaded. No filler.

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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential consequence (code permanently retired). Minor gap: it doesn't confirm whether a deleted link can be recreated or whether the call errors on an unknown code.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with the exact format ('x7Kp2Qa', length bounds). The description adds nothing further about the code argument, 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 a short link') and adds the crucial scope qualifier 'for good', which separates it from the non-destructive siblings links_update and links_shorten. An agent can distinguish it from links_list/links_get 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?

'For good' hints that this is irreversible, but the description never says when to reach for this tool versus links_update (e.g. to disable a link without retiring its code) or how to find a code first via links_list. Usage is left to the agent to infer.

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