update_hyperlink

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

No annotations provided, and the description only covers the basic action. No mention of side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or what happens if the r_id does not exist. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a short argument list. No extraneous information, front-loaded purpose. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 functionality but lacks error handling details and behavior when the hyperlink does not exist. With no annotations, it should provide more context to fully characterize the tool's behavior.

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%, so the description's parameter explanations are crucial. It provides an example format for r_id and clarifies 'new_url' as a target URL, but does not specify URL validity requirements (e.g., must be absolute, must start with http). Adds some value but could be more precise.

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?

Clearly states verb 'update', resource 'external hyperlink relationship', and specific attribute 'target URL'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like add_hyperlink and remove_hyperlink by focusing on modification of an existing 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?

Although no explicit when/when-not statements, the name and description make it obvious that this tool is for updating an existing hyperlink, not adding or deleting. The context of sibling tools reinforces this, but explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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