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

Beyond annotations, it discloses important behavior: partial updates leave omitted fields unchanged, the operation runs without confirmation, nobody is notified, and it returns the whole new list. These details materially help an agent understand side effects and response shape.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by permissions, update semantics, return behavior, and confirmation behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

Given rich annotations, complete schema parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers admin restriction, partial update behavior, return value, and lack of notification. Minor gaps such as error behavior are not essential here.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds the useful partial-update rule that omitted fields stay unchanged, but it does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Change the text or address of a sidebar link.' It clearly scopes the operation to one existing sidebar link and distinguishes editing from adding or deleting, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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 provides clear usage context: 'Admins only' and 'Edits one sidebar link, as Settings, Links, Edit does.' It does not explicitly say when not to use this versus add_group_link or delete_group_link, but the edit-only framing is sufficiently clear.

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