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

Goes well beyond the annotations by detailing exactly what is destroyed: ALL old URLs stop working immediately, including URLs already sent to intended viewers. It also specifies what is retained (visibility and reading statistics) and requires the agent to confirm the consequence and provide the replacement URL afterward.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then immediately explains the destructive consequence and the retained data. Every sentence contributes useful information: scenario, warning, confirmation requirement, and retention behavior.

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?

Complete for this tool despite no output schema. It covers the target scope, destructive impact, confirmation requirement, retained data, and the expected follow-up of providing the new URL. An agent has everything needed to invoke it responsibly.

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 schema already documents that exactly one of folder_id or proposal_id must be supplied. The description repeats the mutual exclusivity without adding format, syntax, or other semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: replace the URL for exactly one proposal_id or folder_id. It clearly describes the operation and its target scope, including 'for example after a leak.' It does not explicitly name or contrast with close siblings such as revoke_share_link, so it falls just short of the top score.

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?

Provides a clear usage scenario ('after a leak') and a strong prerequisite to confirm the consequence before proceeding. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like revoke_share_link, but the context is sufficient to guide selection.

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