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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the action is reversible, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 with no wasted words. All key information is front-loaded (action, resource, reversibility).

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 activation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and reversal. It could mention what happens when activated (e.g., link enabled for signers), but given the simplicity, it's 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%, and the description does not add significant additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The mention of 'by its token' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantics.

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 action (activate/enable) and the resource (recipient link by token). It distinguishes from the sibling 'deactivate-document-link' by mentioning reversibility. However, it could more explicitly tie the link to a document, though schema provides that context.

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 explicitly says when to use (activate a link) and mentions the alternative 'deactivate-document-link' for reversal. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is clear.

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