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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It signals a mutation of destination/key/tags/archived state, but says nothing about partial-update behavior (whether omitted fields are preserved), permission requirements, or that tag changes replace existing tags — a notable gap given the destructive hint.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the mutating action comes first. The 'Dub: PATCH /links/{linkId}' clause is mildly redundant but cheap and useful for API-level context.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with only a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description is thin — it covers the main field categories but not safety, auth, or response expectations. The 100% schema coverage offsets much of this, keeping it at minimum-viable adequacy.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description names only four of the seven fields (omitting title and comments) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Change a link's ...') and enumerates the mutable fields, plus the underlying API route, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It is distinguishable from sibling create/delete/get link tools by the 'change' semantics, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus dub_create_link, dub_delete_link, or dub_get_link, and no mention of prerequisites or that at least one updatable field must be supplied. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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