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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds the key side effect that the previous link is immediately invalidated, which an agent needs to know before calling. It does not restate idempotency or repeat-call behavior, leaving that to the 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the destructive side effect follows immediately.

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?

With an output schema, annotations, and a fully documented single parameter, the description supplies what is missing: the trigger condition and the invalidation consequence. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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 formation_id parameter already documents the op_fm_* format and the invalidation side effect. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (reissue an action link) and scopes it to the current formation step and to expired or lost links. No sibling tool overlaps with this operation, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 trigger condition is explicit: use when the action link has expired or been lost. There are no named exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling performs an equivalent reissue operation, so the missing exclusion costs little.

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