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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations, the PATCH-style partial update ("Only fields you pass are changed"), but it never explains what makes the operation destructive or whether authentication or specific permissions are required.

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 short sentences, the core action front-loaded and the important partial-update caveat immediately following. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a destructive mutation with 0% parameter coverage the definition is under-specified. It omits parameter meaning, permission requirements, and what destructive behavior (e.g., expire_date effects) the caller should expect.

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 burden falls entirely on the description, which never names name, link_id, or expire_date, nor explains formats such as expire_date syntax. The generic "fields you pass" phrasing communicates partial-update semantics but leaves all three parameters semantically undocumented.

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 a specific verb (update) and resource (a link's properties), which is clearer than the sibling get_link/list_links. However, it does not distinguish itself from enable_link or disable_link, which also mutate a link's state, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from schemas alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus enable_link, disable_link, delete_link, or create_link, nor any prerequisite or precondition. The partial-update sentence describes behavior, not the conditions under which the tool should be selected.

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