link_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions setting specific properties but does not clarify key behaviors like whether updates merge or replace, error handling for non-existent link_id, or authorization requirements. This leaves significant uncertainty for an agent.

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, consisting of a single sentence with relevant examples. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. While efficiently brief, it could benefit from clearer structure separating purpose from examples.

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 tool's complexity (nested updates, 3 parameters, many sibling tools) and the absence of schema descriptions and annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits return value details, expected behavior for optional parameters, and how updates interact with existing state, leaving critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples for the 'updates' parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema's empty definition. However, it does not explain the 'link_id' or 'project_id' parameters, leaving ambiguity about their roles and constraints.

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 function as updating a link and provides specific examples of updates (suspend, filters). However, it does not differentiate the tool from sibling tools like link_reset or link_delete, limiting its ability to uniquely identify its purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for modifying link properties, but lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or context for when not to use it, such as preferring link_reset for full resets.

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