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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing consequences the hints cannot convey: alias changes break the old short link, destination changes redirect all visitors immediately, the plan gate, that no previous values are returned, and that the call is never retried. This is exactly the destructive-operation context an agent needs before mutating a live link.

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?

Front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the affected resource, then layers optionality, side effects, plan gate, and safety caution in tight sentences with no filler. Every clause carries decision-relevant 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 6-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, plan constraints, irreversible side effects, and even the return-value expectation ('sends no previous values back'). Nothing essential for correct invocation is 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic weight beyond the schema: the alias side effect ('old short link stops working'), the instantaneous global redirect behavior, and the instruction to send only changed fields. The unique-click window semantics remain schema-only.

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?

Opens with an explicit verb and resource ('WRITE: change a short link') and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable (alias, destination URL, title, tag, unique-click window). This is distinguishable from siblings like cuttly_delete_link or cuttly_set_link_expiration, which target different operations.

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?

Gives clear operating conditions: 'Send only what you want to change,' the Single-plan requirement for editing, and a caution to 'ask the user before you change a live link.' It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or exclusion, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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