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

Annotations only declare destructive/idempotent/not-read-only; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing exactly what is destroyed (destination and click history erased, redirect stops), that it is irreversible and non-reactivatable, and that the code is never reissued. This is unusually rich disclosure for a destructive mutation.

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 irreversible consequence, then the use case, then the alternative. Every clause carries information an agent needs; 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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the single required param is fully covered by the schema. The description supplies the full behavioral and routing context, leaving no gap for an agent to fill.

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% and the single 'code' parameter is fully documented in the schema (format, examples, full-URL acceptance), so the description adds no syntax or format detail. The note that the code is never given to anyone else touches the parameter's lifecycle but is behavioral rather than semantic, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource (permanently delete a short link) with precise scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling deactivate_url. An agent can pick this over the other eight siblings without opening a schema.

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 an explicit use case ('a destination shouldn't be kept, e.g. a URL with a private token') and names the alternative for the softer action ('to just switch a link off, use deactivate_url'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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