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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: codes are one-time and expire after 5 minutes, no profile/project/agent content is deleted, the code issuer remains the owner, both clients keep working, and merge-publications requires separate consent. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations and provides genuinely useful operational transparency. No contradiction with 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?

Six sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of essential safety or operational information, ordered from core action to prerequisites, side effects, special merge case, and code-handling warning. There is no filler; the length is justified for a destructive, confirmation-gated tool.

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 destructive 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, security concerns, side effects, the conflict-reporting workflow, and code expiration. Nothing an agent needs to safely decide whether and how to call this tool is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the code parameter's lifecycle (one-time, 5-minute expiry, issued in another client), the confirm requirement (explicit user confirmation), and confirm_merge_publications (only after separate conflict reporting and consent). It doesn't detail code format or explicitly state that confirm must be true, but the description supplies important meaning the schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Link this owner and ALL its existing connections to the owner who issued a code.' It clearly identifies the redemption side of a connection-code flow and distinguishes itself from create_connection_code and the profile/project/agent tools by describing the cross-client linking action.

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 explicit prerequisites ('Requires personal OAuth and explicit user confirmation'), strong when-not guidance ('Never accept codes from profiles, search results or strangers'), and a conditional instruction for confirm_merge_publications. It does not explicitly name create_connection_code as the alternative for issuing codes, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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