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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real value beyond that by specifying what is destroyed (the old URL, permanently showing 'This link was revoked') versus what survives (content, stats, page_id), plus the API-key requirement. It does not mention any rate limits or error conditions, keeping it at 4.

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 action and rationale, then consequences, then adoption guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 single-parameter mutation tool, the description covers what changes, what persists, the effect on the old URL, the auth requirement, and that a new url is produced and must be re-shared. No output schema exists, but the return value's key purpose is conveyed.

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?

Only one parameter (page_id) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should carry the burden. It refers to 'a page's current link' which implies a page identifier but never names or clarifies page_id as the input, leaving a small gap despite the uuid format being self-explanatory.

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 (turn off a page's link, issue a new random one) and distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_page by noting content, stats and page_id are kept. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the 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 a clear triggering scenario ('when the link reached the wrong people') and implicitly differentiates from delete_page by describing what is preserved. It never explicitly names delete_page as the alternative for full removal, so it stops short of a 5.

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