delete_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excellently discloses the permanent effect: 'Permanently revoke and delete', 'stop redirecting immediately', and 'irreversible'. This fully informs the agent of the destructive behavior.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and consequences with zero waste. Every sentence adds essential 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?

For a simple destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the outcome and irreversibility adequately. It could mention the absence of an undo option or confirmation prompt, but the current content is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for the 'id' parameter ('The slug or ID of the short link'). The tool description adds no further information about the parameter format or validation, so it only meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verbs 'revoke and delete' with the resource 'short link', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_link (non-destructive) and shorten_url (creation). The action is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 states when to use the tool (to delete a short link) and emphasizes irreversibility, implying caution. However, it does not explicitly guide against using it when the link is needed later or suggest alternatives like update_link for changing the destination.

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