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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower, yet the description usefully disambiguates the blast radius: only future attributions stop, while already-converted apartments remain with the partner. It does not cover reversibility or auth handling beyond what the schema notes.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence attached; no filler and nothing that should be trimmed.

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 mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers what changes and what is preserved. Minor gap: it never says whether the disable can be undone or what a successful call returns.

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% and both parameters are documented there (including the REST Bearer-key note for partner_key), so the description contributes nothing additional about inputs. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('switches off one tracked link') and immediately explains the concrete effect on link codes, which clearly separates it from sibling creation/list tools like partner_create_sublink and partner_list_sublinks.

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 effect wording implies the situation in which you'd call it (retiring an active sublink), but it never states when to use this versus alternatives or prerequisites such as re-enabling being unavailable. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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