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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the risk profile is partly covered. The description adds the PATCH endpoint and the mutable field set, but says nothing about partial-update semantics or that changing 'key' can break previously distributed links — useful context that is missing for a destructive mutation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutable fields and followed by the API mapping. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 destructive PATCH with no output schema and a fully described input schema, the definition is minimally sufficient — an agent knows what it can change. It omits the merge-vs-replace behavior and consequences of key changes, which leaves a gap for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so every parameter including 'tagNames' replace-semantics and 'archived' is already documented in the schema. The description only restates four of the seven fields and adds no syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (change) plus the resource and the exact fields it can mutate, which distinguishes it from dub_create_link, dub_delete_link and dub_get_link without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as needing the link to exist or having write scope. The field list implies the edit use case but nothing routes the agent between this and dub_create_link for correcting a link.

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