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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and optionality/idempotency flags, and the description still adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the old token and URL stop working immediately for every holder, the change is irreversible ('cannot be restored'), and agendas expire after 7 days with no recovery. This is exactly the extra context a destructive, non-idempotent operation needs.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the impact, then the return value and lifetime constraint. No filler; every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 the description need not enumerate return fields — and it still notes that the full agenda with new edit_url and edit_token is returned. Combined with the irreversibility and expiry warnings, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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's meaning ('the current edit_token — the one being replaced') is already documented in the schema. The description confirms the same semantics in prose but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource (replaces an agenda's edit token and edit link) with the scope made explicit — this is a rotation, not an edit. It is clearly differentiable from siblings like update_agenda, create_agenda, or get_agenda, which do not invalidate credentials.

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 a concrete when-to-use case: 'the remedy when an edit link was shared by mistake.' That is a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use (e.g. routine rotation, or that update_agenda should be used for content changes), so it stops short of a 5.

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