keyso_post_monitoring_id_link_words

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the operation updates a URL, but not side effects, required permissions, whether the update replaces all matches, or what a successful response looks like.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by method, path, and an example URL. There is little waste, though the Russian sentence could be slightly more structured for an API agent.

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 tool with an opaque required body and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot construct the request body or predict response behavior from the information provided.

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 reported as 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the body parameter is a generic 'JSON body' object with empty properties. The description adds narrative context about target URL and phrase/group, but it does not specify the actual body fields or format needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a specific action and resource: 'обновление целевого URL у фразы или группы фраз' (updating the target URL for a phrase or group of phrases) and gives the POST path. This distinguishes it from sibling monitoring tools, though it could be more explicit about what 'link-words' means in this context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative monitoring tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description gives the endpoint but does not explain how this update operation fits among the many sibling tools like patch_monitoring_id or post_monitoring_id_start.

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