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

Beyond annotations, it discloses important mutation behavior: the id stays the same, conversation and closed counts are preserved, the link number does not change, and old published links fall back to the number's normal rule. It also notes that the returned wa.me address includes the new text. This is rich context for a destructive, idempotent update and does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then gives tightly relevant behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place: partial-update instruction, count preservation, number stability, and publication warning are all operationally useful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it safely: what changes, what is preserved, how old links behave, and what the returned wa.me address contains. The remaining parameter details are fully covered by the schema.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description adds useful semantics around partial updates, link_id stability, and the downstream effect of changing texto, but it does not elaborate on target_user_id or agent_profile_id beyond the schema.

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 and resource: editing an inbound link, including name, text, and destination agent. It clearly distinguishes this as a partial update of an existing link via list_agent_links, rather than creation or deletion.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: send only changed fields, preserve the id, and avoid delete-and-recreate because that resets conversation counts. It also warns to update published placements when changing the text. It does not explicitly enumerate create_agent_link/delete_agent_link as alternatives, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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