elba_link_publish

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two valuable behaviors: the API does not return current link settings, so with_signatures and qr_payment are reset rather than preserved, and the stale-link payment risk if an invoice is cancelled without unpublishing. It says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what happens when link_id/document_id resolve to nothing.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler. The core action and its two modes come first, followed by the operational trigger and then the parameter sourcing notes, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the mode switch, both identifier options, and a destructive-side-effect warning. It stops short of describing the return value or failure modes, which would matter for confirming the link state actually changed.

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 compensate and largely does: it explains published's default and inverse meanings, gives two alternate identifiers (link_id from elba_document_link, or document_id for journal invoices), and warns that with_signatures and qr_payment must be re-supplied each call. It still leaves the meaning of qr_payment/with_signatures beyond their reset behavior unstated.

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 pair (снять/вернуть публичную ссылку с публикации) and immediately defines both modes via the published flag. It also anchors the resource to the sibling elba_document_link by naming it as the source of link_id, so the agent can tell this apart from the tool that creates links.

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 rule: unpublish when the invoice is cancelled, because the client would otherwise open and pay via the stale link. It does not state when not to use it or what the alternative is for the republish case beyond the published=true flag, but the operational trigger is explicit.

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