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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect of archiving (new signups stop being attributed) plus the restore path. However, it doesn't say whether the update is partial (omitting label leaves it unchanged), whether archiving is reversible for historical attributions, or what permissions are needed for a mutation.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the mutating action front-loaded and the important archival semantics in a tight parenthetical. No filler or repetition.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics but leaves open partial-update behavior, permission requirements, and the response shape. Adequate, but a couple of additional clauses would close real gaps.

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 coverage is only 33%, with label and archived undocumented in the schema — the description compensates by explaining what label does and the boolean semantics of archived (including the non-obvious archived=false restore behavior). The id parameter is self-evident from the schema and need not be repeated.

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 pairs a specific verb (Change) with the resource (link label) and names the two supported operations: relabel and archive. It is easy to distinguish from create_referral_link or list_referred_users, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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 clearly states the conditions under which each mode applies: archiving stops attribution of new signups, and archived=false restores the link. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., ownership or permissions), but the when-to-use context is concrete.

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