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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-idempotent and a write, so the description does not need to re-declare that. It does add the concrete mutation semantics (links date shifted back 45 days, re-queued for link workers), which is useful, but it omits consequences: what happens to already-published links, whether the shift is reversible, and whether repeated calls compound the shift (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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 sentences; the write tag and the core action are front-loaded, and the identifier guidance is placed after the action description. No filler or 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 small destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the identifier options, which is the minimum. It is not complete enough on effect scope and identifier requirements for an agent to invoke it confidently without risk of a no-op or unintended link-date shift.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does partially by telling the agent it can pass either seliee_article_id or seliee_article_uuid. However, with zero required parameters it never states that at least one identifier must be supplied, nor what happens if both or neither are given — the key ambiguity an agent will hit.

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 (re-queue / rotate) and resource (an article's links) and explains the mechanism: moving the links date 45 days back. It does not name or differentiate from the closely related sibling rotate_collection_links, so an agent must infer the article-vs-collection distinction from the names alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. article must exist/be published), and no reference to alternatives such as get_article_links to inspect links first or rotate_collection_links for collections. The only guidance is which identifier to pass.

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