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 irreversibility, the public URL side effect, and precise 404 semantics for unknown ids and cross-workspace links. This is substantive behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and effect, the second covers irreversibility and the alternative, and the third adds error semantics. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

The core destructive behavior, irreversibility, alternative, and 404 case are covered well. However, with no output schema and five parameters (two required), the lack of guidance on `idempotency_key` and how to obtain or format the resource id leaves the calling contract incomplete.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for undocumented parameters, but it only indirectly addresses `id` and workspace scoping. The required `idempotency_key`, plus `brand_id` and `query`, are left unexplained, so an agent has to guess their purpose and format.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a calendar share link', and names the concrete effect (the public /calendar/share/<token> URL stops working). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like aidelly_delete_short_link or aidelly_delete_calendar_events_id.

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 gives an explicit when-not and alternative: 'disable the link in-app instead if you may need it back.' It also warns that links in another workspace behave like unknown ids, which helps an agent decide whether to proceed or investigate workspace context.

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