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

Annotations give destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description usefully nuances this by stating the previously linked magnet is 'not deleted, only unlinked', clarifying that the destructive hint refers to unlinking rather than data loss. It also discloses the auth scope (content:read) needed for the catalog lookup, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisites/side effects, then the discovery pointer. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, preconditions, side effects, and catalog discovery, which is nearly complete for a two-param link operation; only explicit inverse-tool routing 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does label both params with meaning: 'id (template uuid)' and 'body { collectibleId (uuid) }'. It identifies which UUID is the template and which is the magnet, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond uuid.

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 (link) plus resource (ready-made magnet/collectible) and target (template), and immediately distinguishes itself from the image-upload path with '(without uploading an image)'. An agent can separate it from unlink_template_collectible and add_* siblings without opening a 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 the precondition (target must be ACTIVE and either a ready-made platform magnet or yours) and routes catalog discovery to list_collectible_catalog. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name the unlink sibling as the inverse operation, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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