Update Link

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you provide will be modified'), which is beyond what the schema shows. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields beyond the implied preservation, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and exactly three sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Each sentence provides essential information: the operation, the scope of editable fields, and the partial-update behavior. No wasteful or redundant content.

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?

The tool is a mutation with 10 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the operation and the partial-update semantics, which is valuable, but it omits what the response will be or any failure conditions. Given the rich schema, the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete for an agent to set expectations.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the enumeration of categories. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing link's properties'), and it explicitly enumerates the kinds of properties that can be modified (name, URLs, parameters, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_link, delete_link, and get_link.

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 implies this tool is for modifying existing links, which is clear from the first sentence, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'use create_link for new links'). The partial-update note is a behavioral hint rather than usage guidance.

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