Delete or redact a per-recipient link

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

The description reveals that both operations are irreversible, that redaction makes the name permanently unsettable, and that the tool requires the Pro plan. These add behavioral context beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and idempotentHint flags.

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 description is concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds essential information (modes, GDPR context, irreversibility, plan requirement). No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive, two-mode tool, the description covers purpose, use case, irreversibility, and prerequisites. With full schema coverage and an output schema, return values do not need explanation. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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 descriptions cover all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic nuance for the redact parameter by noting a redacted name can never be set again, which goes beyond the schema's simple boolean description.

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 clearly states the tool permanently deletes a per-recipient link or redacts the recipient's name, using specific verbs and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like everypage_delete_file by focusing on per-recipient links, not entire files.

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?

The description gives concrete use-case guidance, explicitly recommending redaction for GDPR erasure requests and contrasting it with deletion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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