Update a short link (any subset of create_link fields, plus slug). Editing destination_url requires the Pro+ edit-destination feature. Requires links:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fields | Yes | Fields to update, same names as create_link |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the auth scope and a feature constraint for one field, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or whether the update is atomic. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second adds a key constraint. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the presence of a nested object parameter (fields) and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It does not specify the response format, whether the update returns the updated link, or how errors are handled. The main constraints are covered, but gaps remain.
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?
The schema has 50% coverage; the description adds meaning by clarifying the 'fields' object content: 'any subset of create_link fields, plus slug'. It also specifies that destination_url requires Pro+, which is beyond the schema. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'short link'. It specifies the updateable fields as 'any subset of create_link fields, plus slug', distinguishing it from create_link. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update-like tools like set_link_enabled.
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 provides a usage condition for editing destination_url (requires Pro+ feature) and mentions required scope (links:write). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_link or set_link_enabled, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation (create, delete, update, list, etc.) on specific resources (links, folders, tags, analytics). No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_link, list_folders, and get_link_analytics. No deviations or mixed styles.
With 12 tools, the server covers the essential operations for a URL shortener (CRUD, analytics, QR codes, folders, tags) without being bloated or incomplete.
The tool set provides full lifecycle management for short links (create, read, update, delete, enable/disable), plus analytics, folders, tags, QR generation, and account usage. No obvious gaps.
