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

The description adds the prerequisite (connected site) and clarifies what the link does and does not mean ('not proof that tracking works'), which annotations do not cover. However, with destructiveHint=true it never discloses what the link overwrites or whether re-linking replaces an existing report, leaving the destructive behavior opaque.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and each sentence adds a constraint or caveat. Slightly denser than needed but no filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and idempotency and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers the prerequisite, the acceptance rule, and the meaning of the link. Only the overwrite/idempotency behavior remains 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter, the description carries the semantic load: it explains the argument is the report URL and adds a validation rule the schema's regex cannot express, namely that only a report for this exact website is accepted.

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 (Links) and resource (an existing Tyton audit report to the connected website's Get Started checklist), which is unmistakably distinct from siblings like save_capi_token, record_audit_context, or audit_site. An agent can select it 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?

Gives clear conditions: requires a connected site, only a report for this exact website is accepted, and it completes the checklist's audit step. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state exclusions against siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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