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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the concrete blast radius (the public link and posters stop working), the irreversibility, and the required credentials. destructiveHint=true is already structured data, but the description explains what is actually destroyed and how to verify intent first.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct load: identity, credentials, and safety warning. The destructive warning is placed last where it lands as the final instruction before invocation.

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 and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is deleted, what breaks, credential requirements, and confirmation policy. A low-complexity, single-resource deletion is fully specified.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint the schema lacks: no parameters are marked required, yet the tool needs either edit_link or the slug + edit_key pair. That either-or requirement is meaningfully supplied by the description.

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 (permanently deletes) and resource (a branded page made with create_branded_link), tying it to its lifecycle counterpart. An agent can distinguish it from update_branded_link or cancel_watch_party without opening a 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?

Gives concrete preconditions (needs the private edit_link or slug + edit_key) and an explicit procedural instruction (cannot be undone; confirm with the user first). It does not name a sibling as the alternative for non-destructive edits, but the confirmation gate is exactly the guidance a destructive tool needs.

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