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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds significant context beyond that: the action costs credits, is billed exactly like create_link, allocates its own instance, and charges pro rata for the rest of the period. It also discloses that the source link is untouched and keeps working, plus error conditions (402/403), which is valuable behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, source-link safety, credit cost, user-confirmation requirement, error codes, and the disabled-link revival use case. Important warnings are front-loaded and capitalized, making critical constraints hard to miss. It is longer than average, but the content justifies the length.

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 two-parameter tool with no nested objects and full schema coverage, the description covers all essential operational context: cost implications, irreversibility implications for disabled links, user confirmation, and failure modes. It does not describe the return value, but the tool's behavior and constraints are sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters well. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but it reinforces the purpose of name by noting the copy defaults to the source's name and leaves two links with the same name. This is baseline-appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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: 'Create a new public link' with the same configuration as an existing one. It clearly differentiates from siblings like create_link by framing this as a copy of an existing link, and it explicitly notes the copy gets its own URL while the source remains untouched. An agent can confidently distinguish this from disable_link, update_link, and create_link.

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 states clear usage context: duplicate an existing public link, and notably, it is the way to revive a disabled link because disabling cannot be undone. It also gives an explicit behavioral requirement: ALWAYS confirm with the user before calling. It does not explicitly name create_link as the alternative for brand-new links, but the distinction is strongly implied throughout.

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