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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real substance beyond them: irreversibility and its reversible substitute, 404 behavior for unknown ids AND for links in another workspace, and the retry-safe idempotency_key semantics. This closely matches the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its permanence, followed by error and retry semantics. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers failure modes (404) and the idempotent return, which is what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the unexplained query/brand_id parameters, though these look like generic plumbing.

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 40%, so the description should carry more of the burden. It clarifies id (via the 404-on-unknown-id statement), idempotency_key retry behavior, and implicitly workspace scoping ('links in another workspace'), but says nothing about the query override object or brand_id. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 and resource (delete a calendar share link) plus the concrete effect: the public /calendar/share/<token> URL stops working. This distinguishes it from the many sibling delete_* tools (delete_short_link, delete_task, etc.) by naming the exact resource and its user-visible consequence.

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?

It names a reversible alternative ('disabling the link in the Aidelly app') which gives clear when-to-use/when-not guidance. It stops short of routing to a sibling MCP tool, but for an irreversible delete the alternative framing is the guidance that matters.

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