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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description usefully adds that access is cut off but omits whether the action is reversible (enable_link exists) and what happens to an already-disabled link.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and effect and free of filler. It is efficient, though notably terse given the gaps identified elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a destructive mutation tool it should clarify reversibility and how it differs from delete_link, which are meaningful gaps for correct selection.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining link_id, and it says nothing about the parameter. The name is fairly self-evident, but the description adds no meaning beyond it.

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?

Specific verb (revoke/disable) plus resource (link) with the stated effect 'preventing further access', so the agent knows what happens. However, it never differentiates itself from the closely related siblings enable_link and delete_link, so the boundary is left to inference.

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 guidance on when to disable a link versus deleting it or leaving it enabled, and no mention that enable_link reverses this operation. Usage is only implied by the verb, not stated.

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