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

Annotations only give destructiveHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the immediate link-breakage, the exact 30-day purge window, precisely what is destroyed (file, versions, links, analytics), and the confirmation/undo model. It stays fully consistent with the destructive annotation.

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?

Front-loads the action, then consequences, then alternatives, then the confirmation and trust note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no hedging or repetition, despite covering a lot of ground.

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, the description supplies the full picture: reversibility window, sibling alternatives, the human confirmation flow that gates the call, and an untrusted-content caveat for returned text. Nothing material an agent needs to invoke this safely 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (baseline 3). The description adds the workflow context behind confirm/confirmationToken/alwaysAllow by describing the preview that shows 'the document, its links and their traffic,' which is more than the schema alone conveys.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Deletes a document') and immediately scopes the effect ('disappears from the workspace and every share link on it stops resolving'). It also names the two most confusable siblings (lnkdrp_restore_doc, lnkdrp_archive_doc) and their distinct behaviors, so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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 lays out the alternative paths clearly: restore brings it back within 30 days, archive takes links offline while keeping analytics and is reversible. That gives strong context for choosing delete vs archive, though it never states the selection rule outright ('use archive when you want to keep analytics') or any hard prerequisite.

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