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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: it removes both the edge and the chip from the source row's link cell, and it fails atomically ('nothing is deleted') with an explanatory error when the pair exists only in the reverse direction. That is meaningful failure-mode disclosure 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then addressing convention, then effect. The final clause explaining why direction is enforced is slightly rhetorical but justifies the constraint rather than padding.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect (edge plus chip removal), atomic failure on direction mismatch, and defers concurrency handling to the baseRevision schema text. Safety and reversibility are carried by annotations. Only the result shape and any 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 from/to UUID and TraceID parameters, including the baseRevision concurrency note, are already documented in the schema. The description's emphasis that direction carries meaning adds interpretation to the from/to ordering, but it does not supply syntax or format beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a trace link between two TraceIDs') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling traceable_link_create by specifying that it uses the same pair-addressing convention. An agent can distinguish this from create/update siblings without opening the 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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by the note that direction must match an existing link, but the description never states when to prefer this over traceable_link_create or traceable_link-related siblings, nor any preconditions beyond the direction constraint. The traceable_link_create mention is a reference for addressing, not an alternative-selection rule.

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