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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds important behavioral details: partial updates, geo rules are replaced entirely rather than merged, and it does not delete the link. It also lists common error scenarios, which helps the agent anticipate failure modes.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a compact list of updatable fields, and a concise error section. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 complex update tool with nested schema definitions, the description provides essential behavioral context (partial update, geo replacement, common errors). It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning the response_format parameter or returning value details, but the output schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description compensates by enumerating the updatable fields (destination URL, slug, title, redirect type, geo rules, deep link config). However, it omits the response_format parameter and does not explicitly state that id is required, though the common error bullets imply this.

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 opens with 'Update an existing smart link (partial update — only provided fields change)', which clearly states the action and resource. It also lists the specific fields that can be updated, distinguishing it from create/delete/list sibling tools.

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 usage for modifying existing links by defining partial-update behavior and listing common errors. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., create_smart_link), but the context is sufficient for appropriate tool selection.

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