links_delete_link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Delete' aligns consistently with these. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide (e.g., no cascading effects or consequences of deletion), but given the annotations carry the safety profile, the bar is lower and a 3 is appropriate. No contradiction exists.

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 two-word description contains zero waste and is appropriately minimal for a single-parameter destructive tool. It is concise rather than under-specified, though it borders on being too sparse to add value.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, no output schema, and a self-documenting schema, the description is adequate. The name, schema, and annotations together provide enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, so nothing critical 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 100%, with linkId documented as 'Link Id' in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description 'Delete Link' names a specific verb (delete) and resource (link), so it is technically clear what action is performed. However, it adds nothing beyond what the tool name already conveys and does not differentiate among the link siblings (links_create_link, links_update_link) beyond the verb, which is already evident from the name.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as links_update_link or links_create_link. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that should trigger deletion, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.

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