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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses what is destroyed (temporary keys) and the broad blast radius when from/to are omitted (closes every open link), which is exactly the kind of scope detail an agent needs before an irreversible call.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the timing trigger, then the default scope. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 two-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, side effect and default scope adequately, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is the meaning/format of from and to, which nothing else documents.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent that from/to select the link and that omitting them widens scope to all links, but it never says what the values actually are (server identifiers/names) or the accepted format, leaving the core semantics of the two params under-specified.

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+resource ('Close the copy links between servers') and clarifies what that means operationally ('removes the temporary keys'). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling 'transfer', but that sibling is never named to make the pairing explicit.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('Call it when a migration is done') and a fallback behavior ('Without from/to, closes every open link'). It stops short of naming the counterpart tool (transfer) or any when-not condition, so routing is still partly inferential.

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