update_hyperlink

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks detail on behavioral traits such as whether the operation is irreversible, what happens if the relationship ID is invalid, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 concise, using two sentences plus a bullet list with no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameters adequately. It assumes the user knows that the r_id can be obtained from list_hyperlinks, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity. The output schema exists but is not explained, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: r_id is explained with an example ('e.g. "rId7"') and new_url is described as 'The new target URL.' This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the target URL of an existing external hyperlink relationship, specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_hyperlink, remove_hyperlink, and list_hyperlinks.

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 use only on existing hyperlinks ('existing external hyperlink') but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like add_hyperlink or remove_hyperlink, nor does it mention prerequisites or failure conditions.

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