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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description still earns credit by explaining the precise blast radius: existing conversations keep their agent, only future inbound messages fall back to the normal routing rule (inbound agent or menu). That side-effect detail is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource reference comes first and the behavioral consequence follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is removed and what survives, which is the critical agent question. It omits whether deletion is reversible, whether a confirmation step exists, and what the call returns, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 100%, including the note that target_user_id is platform-admin-only, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about link_id format or what target_user_id does on this operation, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Apaga') plus specific resource ('um link de entrada'), and it points at list_agent_links as the place those links come from, which separates it from create_agent_link. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the create/update siblings, but the delete scope is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied by naming list_agent_links as the source of the ids, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use this if...'. No prerequisites such as required permissions or admin role are stated alongside the operation.

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