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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value by specifying exactly what is destroyed — the previous value is gone with no history and no undo — which annotations alone do not convey. It does not address permissions or which fields are optional.

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?

The three operative sentences are front-loaded and each earns its place: scope, exclusion, irreversibility. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword blob adds no instruction and dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, and the destructive consequence. Combined with destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only permission requirements are unstated.

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 schema already documents all four parameters; baseline 3 applies. The mention of roles/weighting hints at what linkvalue carries, but no syntax, format, or interplay between linkvalue and linkvalue_free is explained.

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 ('Eigenschaften einer BESTEHENDEN Verknuepfung aendern') with a concrete example (Rollen, Gewichtung der Kante). It explicitly separates itself from onto_object_create_link and onto_object_delete_link, so an agent can distinguish it from its closest siblings without opening a 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?

Names the two adjacent tools an agent might confuse this with and the condition selecting each: not for creating (use onto_object_create_link), and for removal use onto_object_delete_link. The 'existing link' constraint is stated up front as a precondition.

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