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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful context beyond them: deletion is permanent and already-received payments remain unaffected. It also discloses the authentication requirement, which is not visible in the annotations.

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?

The definition is compact and contains no wasted words. The action statement comes after the authentication context, which is slightly less front-loaded than ideal, but the text remains efficient.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it covers authentication, permanence, and the important caveat that existing payments remain. With annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering the parameter, little 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%, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as the link address or its code. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Supprime définitivement') and names the resources being deleted: a payment link or a form. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as modifier_lien or annuler_lien_retrait.

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?

It states the required context: the user must be connected to a Tchin account, either merchant or individual, with authentication requested the first time. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like modifier_lien or annuler_lien_retrait.

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