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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond them: it clarifies that despite being a non-read operation it 'changes no settings', that it requires the `media.edit` permission, and that it only applies to snapshot-rendered links. It does not discuss cost/rate limits of forcing a render, so it stops short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by when to use it, its applicability constraint, and the permission requirement. No sentence is redundant or restates the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining gaps: trigger timing, applicability limits, side-effect profile and required permission. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single mediaId parameter, and the schema already documents its format (med_…) and provenance (create_web_link / search_media). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource — forcing a fresh server-side snapshot of a web link — and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it changes no settings and that configure_web_link is the tool for changing crop/scroll. An agent can tell it apart from configure_web_link or refresh_screen without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('right after configure_web_link to see whether a crop selector actually matched'), an explicit exclusion ('only meaningful for snapshot-rendered links — a live page is loaded by the screen itself'), and names the alternative for the mutation case (configure_web_link). When-to-use, when-not-to-use and the alternative are all present.

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