youfiliate_update_smart_link

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral details: partial update, geo rules replaced entirely, does NOT delete the link. This enriches understanding beyond 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?

The description is well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second lists fields, third covers errors. It is concise and front-loaded but could be slightly tighter.

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 the tool's complexity (optional fields, nested objects), the description covers partial update, geo rules replacement, and common errors. It does not explain return values (mitigated by output schema) or deep link replacement behavior, but is adequate overall.

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?

Each parameter in the schema has a detailed description. The description lists updatable fields but adds little extra meaning beyond the schema. It notes geo_rules replacement and common errors, which is helpful but not essential.

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 'Update an existing smart link' with partial update behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get. The title from annotations is also clear.

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 explains partial update behavior and that geo rules are replaced entirely. It also lists common errors. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete, though it is contextually clear.

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