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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'block further access' which provides additional context about the effect, but does not detail reversibility or other behavioral nuances.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with the HTTP method and path, efficiently conveying the action without any wasted words.

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?

While the description covers the purpose and effect, it omits explanations for required parameters like idempotency_key and lacks details on response or error handling, leaving gaps in completeness given the low schema coverage.

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 only 40%, with most parameters (id, brand_id, idempotency_key) lacking descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the URL path implying 'id' is the link ID, but without explicit parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states it is a DELETE endpoint to revoke a client review link and block further access, using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling revoke tools by specifying 'client review link'.

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 description implies use when revocation is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor when not to use. No contrast with siblings like aidelly_revoke_connect_link.

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