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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds little beyond 'update,' which merely restates the annotation's readOnlyHint=false. The phrase 'privacy-filtered project metadata' hints at input source but discloses no side effects, required auth, or state changes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though the phrase 'using privacy-filtered project metadata' is somewhat vague and could obscure meaning rather than illuminate it.

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 tool with seven parameters, a nested object, a required idempotency key, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is far from complete. An agent lacks even basic information about what 'link context nodes' are, how to fill nested fields, or what the result of an update is.

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 compensate by explaining parameters, but it mentions none of the seven parameters. Terms like sourceId, targetId, projectId, and idempotencyKey are left completely undefined. The nested details object is also undocumented, leaving agents without enough meaning to construct valid calls.

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 ('Update') and names a resource ('hosted link context nodes'), giving a clear basic action. It adds a qualifier about using 'privacy-filtered project metadata,' but does not distinguish this from the related sibling link_context_project_node, so some ambiguity remains.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as link_context_project_node or context_write. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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