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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds no extra context such as what disabling a link does to existing connections, why a required idempotency_key exists on an update, or any auth/rate-limit notes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for an 8-parameter destructive mutation.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-object, destructive mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, one sentence is not enough. Required-parameter semantics and the consequences of the enabled-status change are missing.

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 only 38% across 8 parameters. The description names title and is_enabled but says nothing about the required id, the required idempotency_key, brand_id, workspace_id, or the body/query override objects, so it fails to compensate 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 (Update) and resource (OAuth connect link) and even enumerates the two mutable fields, title and enabled status. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as aidelly_revoke_connect_link or aidelly_create_connect_link, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The distinction between toggling is_enabled here versus revoking via aidelly_revoke_connect_link is left entirely to inference.

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