uselink_update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the draft-only nature and partial update behavior, which is useful. However, it omits details about permissions, reversibility, error handling, or interactions between fields (e.g., format/content coupling), leaving room for more 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 two sentences long, front-loads the action and resource, and every sentence adds value: the first states the operation and fields, the second explains the partial update and draft/publish distinction. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential workflow of editing a draft and publishing separately, which is the core context. However, it does not mention response format, error conditions, or field-specific behavior beyond partial updates. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, additional detail would be beneficial for a fully self-contained description.

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 only 25% (id alone has a description). The tool description names title, content, and format, and clarifies that only provided fields change, adding meaning beyond the schema. But it lacks detailed semantics for each parameter, such as constraints on format when content is provided, so it only partially compensates for the low schema 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing uselink document', and lists the specific fields (title, content, format). It also distinguishes itself from the optional publish step by noting this only updates the draft, which differentiates it from sibling tools like publish and create.

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?

It explicitly explains the draft/publish workflow and directs users to call uselink_publish_document to make changes public, providing a clear alternative. It also states 'Only provided fields are changed', guiding partial update usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool for other siblings, though the publish alternative covers the most important distinction.

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