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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful detail beyond them: the login requirement and the "no-op if no match" behavior, which concretely explains the idempotent semantics. It does not state reversibility or confirm only the current user's own link can be removed.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the login precondition followed by the action and its matching rule. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 a simple two-parameter delete with annotations covering the safety profile and no meaningful return value, the description covers auth, matching, and no-op behavior adequately. Only the absence of any note on reversibility or confirmation keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so both url and type are already documented in the schema, including the "must match exactly" constraint on url. The description repeats "by url, optionally narrowed by type" without adding format, normalization, or matching-rule detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (删除/delete), the resource (当前用户的链接 / current user's links), and the matching key (url). It is clearly distinct from add_profile_link and set_link_visibility, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 supplies a precondition ("【需要登录】") and states how matching works, which implies when the tool applies. However, it names no alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to use add_profile_link or set_link_visibility instead), so usage is only implied.

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