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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: exactly what gets destroyed (PDFs, thumbnails, AI assistant data), what survives ('Documents the link already produced are NOT deleted'), irreversibility, the ordering dependency, and the 409 error condition. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Every sentence carries an operational fact and the highest-stakes information (PERMANENTLY, scope of destruction) is front-loaded with caps for emphasis. It is slightly dense as a wall of text with parenthetical asides, and the rationale sentence partially restates the 409 scenario, keeping it just below a perfect 5.

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, it covers prerequisites, error behavior, exclusions, and permission boundaries thoroughly. It does not describe the success response after deletion, a minor gap given no output schema exists (re-deletion idempotency is already conveyed by the idempotentHint annotation).

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% — linkId is already documented as 'Unique identifier of the public link to delete.' The description adds behavioral context around the link but no parameter-specific format or meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'PERMANENTLY deletes a public link' — and defines its scope ('and everything only it was using: its generated PDFs, thumbnails and any AI assistant data'). It distinguishes from siblings both by resource type (link vs document/draft/file/template) and by naming disable_link as the non-destructive counterpart.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: 'Call disable_link, then this; deleting a live link returns 409,' plus the confirmation requirement ('always confirm with the user first') and the permission boundary ('Owner only — note that disabling is not'). An agent knows exactly the prerequisite, ordering, failure mode, and alternative tool.

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