Delete many links at once

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds critical behavioral details beyond that: (1) preserved copies are also deleted, (2) the two-step confirmation mechanism with token binding to the exact set of IDs, and (3) token invalidation if the ID set changes. This is valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 two sentences, both essential. The first sentence states what the tool does, the second explains the critical workflow. It could slightly improve by front-loading the token invalidation warning more clearly, but it is already efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and the destructiveHint annotation, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior (bulk deletion of links and copies, two-step confirmation, token invalidation). It does not mention error handling or what happens if the token is omitted/malformed, but for the tool's complexity this is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides (link_ids must be 'id' field from search_links, not title/URL; confirm_token is for second call). The description does summarize the intent of the two parameters but does not offer new insight over the schema's own detailed descriptions.

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 verb ('Deletes') and the specific resources ('bookmarks and all their preserved copies'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'delete_link' (singular) and 'bulk_update_links' (different action) by specifying bulk deletion and the two-step process.

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 the two-step workflow (first call returns token, second call with token confirms) and warns that adding an ID afterwards invalidates the token. However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'delete_link' (singular deletion) or 'bulk_update_links' (update, not delete).

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