update_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses the partial update behavior. However, it lacks details on side effects, return value, authorization, or validation. The mutation nature is implied but not fully detailed.

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 sentences with no superfluous text. The first sentence states the purpose, the second enumerates updateable aspects. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 the high complexity (14 params, nested objects, no output schema or annotations), the description is too brief. It lacks details on effects of omitted fields, return behavior, error conditions, and parameter constraints, making it insufficient for complete agent understanding.

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 7%, and the description adds value by listing parameter categories (destinations, UTM, targeting, etc.), but does not explain many parameters like deepLinkParameters or attributionWindowHours. It partially compensates but insufficient for 14 parameters.

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 updates an existing deep link, specifying the resource and action. It lists the aspects that can be changed, distinguishing it from create_link and delete_link siblings.

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 explains that all fields are optional and only provided fields are updated, giving clear context for use. It lists example use cases like changing destinations or status, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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