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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds only the 'turn it off' nuance via the disabled concept and says nothing about reversibility, permission prerequisites, or what toggling disabled does to existing readers. Adequate but thin beyond 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that enumerates the changeable facets. Nothing wasted.

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 9-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers breadth but omits reversibility, permission/auth requirements, and what happens to already-distributed links when settings change. The rich schema compensates for much of the parameter gap, but behavioral context is only minimally complete.

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 78% and the property descriptions are unusually rich (access enum meanings, ai_reading tradeoffs, allow examples, folder auto-creation), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating a subset of fields, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 ('Change') and resource ('a link') plus the concrete facets it controls: access, title, expiry, notifications, disabling. An agent immediately knows what domain the tool operates in. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like update_artifact or delete_schedule.

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?

Usage is implied by listing the mutable settings, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or routing to alternatives such as link_for_person or delete-type siblings. The agent must infer selection from the tool name and the field list alone.

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