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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by explaining the concrete consequence: the old token stops tracking immediately and already-shared links break. This is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before invoking an irreversible mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded right after the purpose statement, so the risk is seen before the alternative. The trailing 'Rewardful: PUT /v1/affiliate_links/:id' is minor implementation detail that earns its place only marginally.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, consequence, and the recommended alternative, with the schema handling parameter syntax. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 both link_id and token are fully documented in the schema, including the token pattern and example. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Change the token of an existing affiliate link'), naming the exact mutation being performed. It is trivially distinguishable from rewardful_create_affiliate_link and rewardful_get_affiliate_link without opening a schema.

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 an explicit when-not and a named alternative: 'Prefer rewardful_create_affiliate_link to add a second token.' The agent knows both the right tool and the reason to avoid this one in the common case.

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