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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds the ownership constraint ("a link you created"), but does not clarify whether unlinking also affects the underlying file — a meaningful distinction given delete_file exists.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but nothing is redundant.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and two params, the description is minimal. It omits the scope of destruction (link only vs. file) and any permissions/ownership prerequisites, leaving gaps an agent would want closed before invoking.

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%; link_id is documented as coming "from link_files" and api_token explains the header alternative. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a clear verb ("Delete") and resource ("a link") with a scope qualifier ("you created"). It is understandable, but it never distinguishes itself from the nearby delete_file sibling, leaving the link-vs-file distinction implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The phrase "you created" hints at an ownership prerequisite, but the agent gets no guidance on choosing this over delete_file or get_file_link.

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