Execute reviewed link tasks

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: prevalidation of all tasks, hash verification before the first request, stop-on-first-failure with known results/failed index/unattempted indices, and explicit absence of retries, rollback or implicit continuation. That partial-execution contract is exactly what an agent needs for a destructive batch.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the batch scope and immediately followed by the precondition and failure contract. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 batch tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, preconditions, and the failure return shape (known results/failed index/unattempted indices), which is the critical information. The success return shape is not described, but the failure path is the higher-risk gap and it is handled.

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% and the schema itself already says 'one to twenty ordered link/tag/folder operations' and documents the hash fields, so the description largely repeats structured data. The ordering emphasis is the only semantic reinforcement, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (submit/execute) and resource (ordered link/tag/folder tasks), plus the 1-20 bound, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name the obvious sibling preview_link_batch, leaving the pairing to be inferred from 'Confirmed' and the hash requirement.

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?

'Confirmed' plus 'verify exact hash before first request' makes the precondition clear: this runs only after a preview was reviewed and confirmed. It gives clear context but never explicitly names preview_link_batch as the alternative or states when not to use this tool.

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