patch_package_links_search_by_fields

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

The description claims 'Required: from, size, q.' but the input schema shows no required fields, contradicting the schema. No annotations exist to clarify safety or side effects. This inconsistency harms transparency.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified and includes a misleading requirement claim. It could be more concise while providing accurate, useful context.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain return values, pagination, or behavior beyond the misleading requirement statement.

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 100% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it incorrectly states required parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already provides parameter info.

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 states 'Get object by connection' which identifies the general action and resource, but it's vague and does not clarify what 'patch_package_links' represents. It differentiates slightly from sibling 'patch_package_search_by_fields' by the resource name, but lacks explicit distinction.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'patch_package_search_by_fields' or 'endpoint_search_by_fields'. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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