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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: the retention side effect and its conditional ('restore normal retention unless a reporter conversation still pins it'), the negative guarantee ('Does not delete the report'), and idempotency-key semantics. It does not cover permissions or response behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its main side effect; every clause adds information and nothing is padding.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the retention nuance, the non-deletion guarantee, and retry semantics, while annotations carry the safety profile. It is slightly short of complete because the identifier parameters remain unexplained.

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% for four required UUID parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only requestId (identical-retry reuse); projectId, cardId, and eventId are left entirely undefined, so the coverage gap is largely uncompensated.

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+resource ('Remove a report event link from a ticket') and immediately scopes it ('Does not delete the report'), which cleanly distinguishes it from delete-style siblings like delete_ticket_comment and from link_ticket_report.

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?

Provides one actionable rule ('Reuse requestId only for an identical retry') but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as resolve_link or a full ticket update, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the name/description rather than explicitly guided.

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