links_update_link

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these hints—it merely repeats the name. It doesn't explain what happens to existing data, whether the update is partial or full, or any side effects. Since annotations already carry some safety hints, the description could compensate with useful details but doesn't.

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 extremely under-specified, not concise. Two words convey almost no information. While it is front-loaded (if one considers it front-loaded as the only content), it fails to provide essential context. Its brevity is a deficiency rather than an asset.

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 that this is an update operation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what a link is, what fields are updatable, what happens if parameters are omitted, or any edge cases. An agent would have little idea how to correctly invoke this 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?

The description makes no mention of parameters. The schema covers only 33% of parameters with descriptions (only linkId has a description). With low schema coverage, the description should have elaborated on what 'name' and 'redirectTo' represent or any constraints, but it does not. No value is added beyond the schema.

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 'Update Link', which identifies the action and resource but lacks specificity about what fields can be modified or how it differs from sibling tools like links_create_link or links_delete_link. It's not a pure tautology (the tool name is links_update_link vs. 'Update Link') but it's close and provides only minimal clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and offers no context for selection among the many link-related tools.

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