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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: removing the last social link can break discoverability. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey and gives the agent important cautionary context.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and immediately follow with a necessary warning. There is no filler, and the warning sentence earns its place by highlighting a destructive edge case.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety profile, the description conveys the operation, the confirmation requirement, and a key side-effect. The only notable gap is that the id parameter remains semantically unexplained, but this is minor for such a straightforward action.

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?

The schema documents 'confirmed' well but leaves 'id' without any description, and schema coverage is only 50%. The description's 'Confirm first' reinforces the confirmed parameter's meaning, but it adds no clarity about what id refers to or how it should be obtained.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Remove a social link', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling add/list operations at a surface level. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

The description implies the tool is for removing social links and gives a practical prerequisite ('Confirm first'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as add_social_link or list_social_links, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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