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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: closing is explicit and reversible, and no message is sent. This usefully refines the destructiveHint: true annotation by reassuring that the action is not irreversible and has no notification side effect. It does not contradict the annotations; it supplements them.

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 a single high-density sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the most important behavioral caveats. Every clause adds information rather than restating 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?

This is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, so the description needs to provide substantially more context. It gives a good overview but omits required semantics like the role of expected_revision, how dry_run behaves, and what constitutes a valid patch. An agent would likely struggle to invoke this correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must carry the explanatory burden for parameters. It only maps the patch sub-fields (recipient, note, email, active flag) and completely omits the required top-level parameters catalogue_id, link_id, patch, and especially expected_revision. It also says nothing about dry_run, which is a significant gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 a specific verb ('Changes') with a clear resource ('tracking link') and enumerates the mutable aspects: recipient, note, email, or active flag. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like foliade_create_tracking_link and foliade_list_tracking_links because it is about altering an existing link. The closing behavior is also directly called out, matching the tool title.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to change an existing tracking link's recipient, note, email, or active flag, or close the link. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to foliade_create_tracking_link for new links. The context is implied but not explicit.

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