Review exact ordered link tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: it explicitly disclaims provider reads, key loading, identity checks, pricing, and any rollback guarantee. This is meaningful disclosure of the tool's limits, though the practical meaning of the SHA-256 step for the caller remains unexplained.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core capability (local validation + hash) is front-loaded. The negation clause is dense and telegraphic, but every element carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the preview returns (validation report, digest, per-task errors), and it does not. Safety and non-actions are well covered, but the caller cannot predict the shape or content of the preview result.

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%, so the required tasks array, its nested tool enum, and the account label are already documented in the schema. The description's phrases ('exact ordered link/tag/folder work', 'selected profile label') only loosely echo those parameters and add no new syntax or constraint detail, 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 names specific operations (local validation and SHA-256 hashing) over a specific resource set (ordered link/tag/folder tasks with a profile label and schema), so an agent can tell this is a dry-run preview rather than an execution. It stops short of naming its obvious counterpart submit_link_batch, so the sibling distinction must be inferred 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?

Usage is only implied: 'No provider reads, key load, identity check...' communicates that this is a safe pre-flight step before a real submission, but the description never states when to call it versus submit_link_batch. There is no explicit conditional routing or exclusion, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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