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

Adds value beyond the annotations by warning that the prior value is overwritten with no history and no undo, which reinforces destructiveHint=true and tells the agent the change is irreversible in practice. It also documents the precondition that the link must already exist. It stops short of stating permission requirements or the shape of the response.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with purpose followed by the exclusion and the destructive caveat. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, property, link, search' keyword list is search-engine padding that adds no agent-facing information and slightly dilutes an otherwise lean entry.

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 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotation-level safety hints, the description covers purpose, routing, preconditions, and irreversibility. No output schema exists, but its absence is not a description responsibility, and nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 each of the four parameters carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'Rollen oder Gewichtung der Kante' gives a hint about what linkvalue carries, but it does not clarify the relationship between linkvalue and linkvalue_free or the role of scope_id.

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?

States a specific verb (aendern) and resource (bestehende Verknuepfung) plus a concrete scope limit: only EXISTING links, with examples of the mutable edge attributes (roles, weighting). It explicitly separates itself from onto_object_create_link and onto_object_delete_link, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when ('change properties of an existing link'), an explicit when-not ('Nutze es nicht zum Anlegen'), and names the correct alternative for each adjacent operation (create vs delete). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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