Update group link

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the admin-only requirement, partial-update semantics ('fields you leave out stay'), return behavior ('Returns the whole new list'), and notification behavior ('nobody is notified'). This is meaningful operational context for a non-idempotent mutation with openWorldHint=true.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core edit action stated first. It loses a small amount of efficiency by repeating 'Admins only' twice, but otherwise every sentence carries useful information.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: permissions, partial update behavior, return shape, and notification side effects. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without opening additional documentation.

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%, so the required baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by clarifying that omitted optional fields are preserved, which is important for interpreting label and url updates.

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 names a specific verb and resource: change the text or address of a sidebar link. It also scopes the operation to exactly one link and explains the patch-style behavior, making it distinguishable from add_group_link, delete_group_link, and list_group_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?

It clearly establishes that this is for editing an existing sidebar link and that the caller must be an admin. It does not explicitly contrast with add/delete/list siblings, but the edit-only context and the reference to list_group_links in the schema make the intended use clear.

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