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

The description discloses concrete destructive behavior ('invalidating the previous URL') beyond the destructiveHint annotation, and it addresses non-idempotency by advising to read company_get_connection_link after an uncertain response before retrying. This adds valuable context for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste: the core action and effect are front-loaded, followed by a confirmation cue and a recovery step. Every sentence earns its place.

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, non-idempotent mutation with a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what gets destroyed, the need for confirmation, and how to recover from uncertain outcomes. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any new meaning about workspaceId beyond what the schema already provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Replace a Workspace's private channel connection link') and adds the key effect ('invalidating the previous URL'), which distinguishes it from generate (create a new link) and revoke (remove a link) siblings.

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 gives clear operational guidance: 'Confirm intent' before use and 'After an uncertain response read company_get_connection_link before another rotation.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over revoke_connection_link or generate_connection_link, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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