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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds essential non-obvious behavior: the action is permanent, the link 404s, never returns in search, cannot be un-hidden via API, and stats are preserved. This goes far beyond the annotations and clarifies exactly what the destructive action entails.

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 sentences, all high-signal, with the permanent/destructive warnings front-loaded after the one-line action. The opening phrase repeats the tool name somewhat, but the extra length is justified for a destructive, irreversible operation.

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?

Covers the critical operational context for a destructive permanent operation: no undelete, 404 behavior, stats preservation, and the human confirmation step. No output schema exists, but return behavior is not necessary for invocation. Minor gap: no guidance on where uuid comes from, though it is a reasonably standard identifier.

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 only 50%: uuid has no schema description. The description reinforces the confirmed boolean workflow by instructing to confirm with the creator and show the title/short code, adding operational meaning beyond the schema. However, uuid semantics (how to identify the link) are not addressed at all, so the description does not fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Hide a link') and frames it as Split's removal mechanism, explicitly noting there is no DELETE for creator links. The title adds 'permanent'. This clearly distinguishes it from update_link (edit) and delete_collection/delete_section (different resources).

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?

Explicitly labels it as the removal mechanism and warns there is no DELETE alternative, telling the agent this is the tool for removal. It also instructs confirming with the creator before calling. It does not name a non-destructive alternative like split_update_link for cases where the intent is editing rather than hiding, so not a full 5.

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