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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the mechanism (link dates shifted 45 days back, workers re-queued), but it omits whether the shift is reversible, what happens on repeated calls, or whether existing link ordering/dates are permanently altered.

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?

Two short clauses: the operation and mechanism come first, followed by the identifier instruction. Every sentence earns its place, though the '[write]' prefix largely duplicates the readOnlyHint=false annotation and adds little.

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-optional-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how, and which identifiers to pass. The remaining gap is the both-optional ambiguity and no statement about reversibility or return behavior, which is a meaningful but not fatal omission.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does communicate that the two identifiers are alternatives ('Pass ... or ...'). However, it does not state whether one is required (the schema marks both nullable with no required fields), nor any format expectations, leaving a genuine ambiguity about what happens if neither is supplied.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Re-queue a collection for the link workers') and even explains the mechanism ('moving its links date 45 days back'), which an agent could not infer from the name alone. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling rotate_article_links, but the 'collection' vs 'article' resource wording distinguishes them adequately.

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?

Nothing says when an agent should rotate a collection versus using get_collection_links, edit_collection, or rotate_article_links, and no preconditions (e.g. links must already exist, publishing state) are mentioned. The only guidance is the parameter-passing instruction, which is parameter semantics rather than usage context.

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