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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the basic mutation (enable/disable) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, rate limits, or whether changes are immediate. The description is minimal.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It avoids unnecessary detail, but could benefit from a slight restructuring to include parameter hints.

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?

Given the absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, side effects, or validation constraints, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameters. It does not explain that 'id' refers to the link's unique identifier or that 'enabled' sets the new state. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but lack explicit 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 clearly states the action (enable/disable) and the resource (short link). It is specific enough to differentiate from siblings like delete_link or generate_qr_code, though not explicitly mentioning alternatives.

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 only mentions the required scope ('links:write') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_link (which might also modify link properties) or other alternatives. No exclusions or context for appropriate use.

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