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

Annotations declare idempotent and non-destructive; the description reinforces and extends this by stating repeat-safety explicitly, naming the validation error code, describing side effects on lnkdrp_list_docs and second-project adds, and flagging untrusted author/viewer text in results. This is rich behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded, leading with the two states before preconditions, idempotency, return fields, and the security note. Every sentence carries weight, though the security disclaimer is slightly tangential to selecting/invoking the tool.

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 still lists the returned fields (docId, visibility, primaryProjectId), covers the precondition and error case, and documents both parameters. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by spelling out the concrete consequence of each enum value (contained-in-project vs. listed-in-workspace) rather than just restating the enum.

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+resource (set a document's visibility) and precisely distinguishes the two resulting states. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from siblings like lnkdrp_add_docs_to_project or lnkdrp_archive_doc.

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 clear context: applies only to a document already in a project, with the counterpart behavior of each value, plus the error condition (VISIBILITY_NEEDS_PROJECT) when a document is in none. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative to use instead, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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