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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the delete is soft, that existing Jams recorded through the link survive, exactly what is returned (publicId and deletedAt), and how the three failure shapes (unknown, already-deleted, other team's ID) all surface as not-found. This is the kind of consequence detail an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the soft-delete caveat, then the return value, then the error contract. Nothing is repeated from the annotations and nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value duty and does so precisely (publicId, deletedAt), and it closes the loop on error behavior. For a single-parameter destructive tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about the required publicId: an already-deleted or cross-team ID yields not-found rather than a silent success, which matters for a call annotated non-idempotent. The optional intent and llm_model parameters get no mention, but they are self-documented.

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 and resource ('Delete a recording link by its publicId') plus the effect ('stops accepting new recordings'), which cleanly separates it from deleteJam and deleteFolder. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

The description gives the condition under which the tool is appropriate (you want to stop the link accepting new recordings, without affecting existing Jams), which implicitly routes an agent away from deleteJam. It never names an alternative or a when-not case explicitly, so guidance remains inferred.

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