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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it scopes the operation to cross-module links only and points at list_cross_links as the id source. It doesn't say what happens on an unknown/stale id, 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 compact sentences: the action and its input come first, the disambiguation follows. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

A one-parameter delete with rich annotations and no output schema needs no more than this. The description covers what it removes, how to identify the target, and when not to use it.

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% and the single parameter is documented as a cross-link UUID, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'Required: linkId' merely restates the required field without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 (remove) and resource (cross-module link), identifies the sole parameter, and explicitly contrasts itself with stride.delete_story_relation. An agent can distinguish it from delete_story_relation and delete_attachment without opening any 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 both a positive routing rule (use this for cross-module links) and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative named for story↔story relations. It even tells the agent where to obtain the linkId.

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