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

Annotations declare destructive/non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: single use, expiry, and the critical consequence that the connection loses the ability to change the tournament afterward. That irreversible hand-off consequence is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Front-loads the action and outcome, then layers precondition and consequence. Every sentence carries information, though phrasing like 'which is the point' is mildly conversational and could be tightened.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (a link), how it is consumed, its lifetime, and the loss of control afterward. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single tournament_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or selection guidance for the ID itself, so 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 (make a link) and the resource/outcome (hands this tournament to a person), and the mechanism (recipient sets email/password, the session's account becomes theirs). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like publish_tournament or create_tournament.

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?

Explicit timing guidance ('hand it over when the tournament is ready rather than when you are still building it') and an explicit precondition ('Only for a tournament made without signing in'), plus the reason a signed-in account doesn't need it. When/when-not and the implicit alternative are all covered.

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