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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true); the description adds the substantive behavior: the link returns switched off so the recipient is not let back in, it retains label/settings/analytics, it is purged with its document, and it enumerates refusal codes (not_found, purged, not_deleted, conflict, forbidden) with role requirements. It even flags result text as untrusted content. Note a mild tension: idempotentHint=true while a repeat call on a live link returns a not_deleted validation error, but this is an interpretive gap rather than a direct contradiction.

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-loaded with the core action and the enabled-switched-off caveat, and nearly every sentence carries distinct operational information. It is dense and somewhat run-on with heavy parenthetical nesting, which costs it a point, but little is waste.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that notes in the result are the app's sentences about the restored link, and it covers permissions, refusal conditions, and lifetime. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 coverage is already 100% and documents the 24-hex format, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by telling the agent where to source the id (the delete's result or meta.linkId of the share_link.revoked activity-feed row), which is the actual operational difficulty with this parameter.

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 (Brings back) and resource (document link or project link deleted), and explicitly names the sibling tools that created the deletion state (lnkdrp_delete_share_link, lnkdrp_delete_project_link). An agent can immediately distinguish this from the deletes, the updates, and the list tools 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?

Explicitly states the alternative path needed to actually re-enable recipients (enabled: true via lnkdrp_update_share_link / lnkdrp_update_project_link), the lifetime constraint (restorable while the document/project exists, purged with them), and where to obtain the linkId since the link is not listed. This is when-to-use, when-not, and alternatives all in one.

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