common-update-item-referrer

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

No annotations cover the relink/remove semantics, so the description must carry that burden, and it does state that links are updated or removed. But it omits whether this is reversible, what happens to the items whose links are changed, and whether it is destructive (annotations claim destructiveHint=false, yet removing links is arguably destructive); the behavior claim is thin relative to the mutation's impact.

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?

A single sentence that is both under-specified and grammatically broken ('a new provided in the -NewTarget'). It is short but not because it is tight; important decision context is missing.

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 relinking/mutation tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations describing side effects, the description is inadequate. It never explains the mutual exclusivity of id/path, the role of database/language, or the effect on the referencing items, leaving an agent short of what it needs to invoke correctly.

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 each parameter is already documented, including the supply-this-or-that relationship for id/path and the newTarget/removeLink meanings. The description adds only a pointer to newTarget and link removal, no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the 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 the verb (updates) and the resource (references to the specified item), and mentions the two operating modes via -NewTarget or removal. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling common-get-item-referrer, and the description is grammatically garbled ('point to a new provided in the -NewTarget'), which reduces 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 explicit when-to-use guidance. It never states how it differs from common-get-item-referrer (read vs write) or when to pick newTarget versus removeLink. The two modes are mentioned but not framed as alternatives the caller must choose between.

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