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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals that the operation is an upsert and requires a specific token. It does not disclose what happens to an existing link, whether the operation is idempotent, or any side effects beyond add/update.

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 description is a single concise sentence with the action and resource front-loaded. The odd 'public round' wording is slightly confusing, but otherwise there is no filler or redundancy.

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 8-parameter write tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, this definition is incomplete. It omits what 'public round' means, what platform values are valid, and how display_order or is_active affect behavior, leaving an agent to guess from names.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only explains write_token. The other seven parameters (coach_slug, platform, url, label, handle, is_active, display_order) are left entirely to their names and schema defaults.

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 action ('Add or update') and a specific resource ('public round social icon link for a Voice School trainer'), which clearly distinguishes it from post-publishing and channel-management siblings. The phrase 'public round' is somewhat ambiguous, but the overall purpose is still evident.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like upsert_social_channel or create_social_post_draft. The intended use is only implied through the resource name, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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