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

Annotations only say not-read-only, not-idempotent, not-destructive. The description goes well beyond: a taken address causes an explicit refusal rather than a silent overwrite, the old address gets a redirect so already-distributed links keep working, and the feature is tariff-gated. These are exactly the side effects and failure modes an agent needs.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what changes, then the collision behavior, then the redirect side effect, then the tariff caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 the key behaviors: refusal on collision, redirect preservation, and availability constraints. It stops short of stating what the call returns or whether the change can be undone, but nothing critical 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 coverage is 100%, so both quiz_id and uri are fully documented in the schema (including the 3–255 length and the advice to keep it short). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: changing the public quiz link address, explicitly narrowed to 'the part the respondent sees'. That is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like manage_quiz_unique_links, manage_quiz_qr_code, or publish_quiz, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 context of use is implied (you change the public link when you want a different address), and it surfaces a real prerequisite — a custom link address is not available on every tariff. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to an alternative tool for related link operations.

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