disable_link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the real-world consequence the annotation cannot convey: visitors hitting an error instead of the destination. That plus the explicit reversal path (disabled=false) gives the agent useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 short sentences, no filler: the action and effect come first, the reversal mechanism second, the destructive consequence last. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated across them.

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 two-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and reversibility, and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain — error behavior on invalid ids and whether re-enabling restores prior settings — but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies the non-obvious polarity of the optional `disabled` boolean (false re-enables), which is genuinely valuable, but the required `id` parameter is never described — its meaning is only inferable from the name and sibling context.

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 and resource ('Disable a short link') plus the observable effect ('so it no longer redirects'), which also implicitly separates it from delete_link and update_link by framing this as a reversible state toggle. An agent can pick this over its siblings without opening any 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?

The description explains how to reverse the operation ('Pass disabled=false to re-enable'), which implies this is the non-permanent alternative to deletion, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over delete_link or update_link. Usage is inferable but not stated, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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