Update Link

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and other safety cues. Description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned on success. It also includes a deprecation note. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is somewhat verbose with redundant phrasing ('Use this to update...' and 'Updates the specified...' repeating similar information). Important details like permissions and deprecation are front-loaded, but conciseness could be improved.

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 no output schema, description adequately mentions return value (modified object). It covers permissions, deprecation, partial update behavior, and required parameters. Missing error handling details, but overall sufficient for a simple update tool.

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 each parameter. Description lists required parameters (project_id, id, title, url) but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., URL format or title constraints). Score is baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it updates attributes of a specific Project Home Link. The verb 'update' and resource 'Project Home Link' are specific. However, it also refers to 'Project-Level Configuration records' which is slightly inconsistent. Distinguishes from siblings like create_link, delete_link, list_links, and bulk_update_links.

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?

Description provides required permissions (Company Admin or Project Home Admin) and notes deprecation with a V2 alternative. It implies usage for updating a single link. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the bulk_update_links sibling, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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