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

Discloses a real behavioral trait beyond annotations: the handle is effectively permanent because changing it breaks every existing link, which is why approval must precede the call. Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotency/destructive flags, so this warning is genuine added value. It stops short of describing what the response contains or what happens on handle collision, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the effect (page at keepp.link/<handle>) before the constraint. The second sentence is long but each clause carries a distinct instruction; minor overlap with the schema's 'as the person approved it' wording is the only redundancy.

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 create tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety flags, the description supplies the one missing piece an agent needs: the mandatory human confirmation step and the permanence of the handle. Nothing required to call it safely is absent.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the handle must be user-approved and is immutable in practice, and the agent may propose one. That reframes both parameters as consent artifacts rather than plain strings.

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 and resource plus the resulting URL shape: 'Creates a page at keepp.link/<handle>'. That resource identity is distinct from siblings such as create_product or create_booking_unit, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 pre-call protocol: always show the exact handle and display name, obtain an explicit yes in the conversation, and propose a handle only if the user has none but never create an unapproved one. This is when/how-to-use guidance with a hard gate, not an implied hint.

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