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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, idempotent, destructive, open-world), so the description's added value is the async note that 'a description change may queue background rendering' and the confirmation guardrail. It does not, however, explain the destructive/overwrite nature of replacing an existing description or the meaning of destructiveHint.

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?

Four sentences, efficiently front-loaded with purpose before the boundaries and caveats. Each sentence contributes, though the separate confirmation sentence could be folded in without loss.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations plus the rendering note cover the mutation behavior, but with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage three parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description. Adequate overall, with a clear parameter gap.

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 carries the full burden, yet it names no parameters. It only loosely implies 'customDescription' via 'the requested description', leaving 'expectedUpdatedAt' (concurrency), 'clientRequestId' (idempotency), and 'userIntentSummary' entirely unexplained.

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 (update), a specific resource (one Smart Link's public description), and an explicit scope boundary. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'dynamoi_update_smart_link_artist_settings' by declaring it cannot touch artist-level theme or pixel settings.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition (user wants to update one Smart Link's description), states what it cannot do (artist-level theme/pixel settings, publish/unpublish), and gives a procedural guardrail (confirm the description before calling). When-to-use, when-not, and a pre-call step are all explicit.

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