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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing runtime behavior. It transparently states that the tool is not live and that it returns a structured feature_not_available response, which is the critical behavioral fact for an agent. It does not speculate about post-launch behavior, which is appropriate given the current stub state.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the key fact ('PATCH link') and immediately follows with the availability status and the expected return. Every word contributes useful information.

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 that is not yet live, the most important context is that it returns feature_not_available, and that is clearly stated. The schema documents parameters, and an output schema exists, reducing the need for the description to explain return values. The main gap is the lack of any pointer to an alternative tool, but that is a usage-guideline issue rather than a completeness issue for this stub.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not explain id, title, or destination beyond what the schema already provides; the destination field already has a description in the schema. The 'PATCH' verb implies partial-update semantics, which adds some meaning, but important parameter meanings and required-id semantics are left undocumented in the description.

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 states 'PATCH link', which conveys an update operation on a link resource and distinguishes it from siblings like create_qr, disable_link, and get_link. It also immediately flags that the tool is 'not live yet', which is essential for an agent deciding whether to call it. However, it does not explicitly say what aspects of a link are updateable (e.g., title, destination) beyond what the schema already implies.

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 no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The 'not live yet' note implicitly warns the agent not to use it, but it does not explicitly say to avoid it or suggest another tool. There is no explanation of when update_link should be preferred over any sibling tool, so usage context is essentially absent.

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