Update / relink hotlinks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the Teamwork reservation requirement, the fact that missing sources come back with a relink hint, the single-undo-step semantics of relink, and the per-node return shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and modes before the caveats, and the parenthetical examples are compact. It is one dense paragraph rather than scannable structure, and some clauses (return shape, undo note) read as padding relative to the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return contract (per node {nodeGuid, updated|relinked, node} | {error}, updatedCount) alongside the Teamwork prerequisite, error behavior for missing sources, and undo-step scope. An agent has everything needed to invoke this multi-mode mutation tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents 'all', 'nodes', 'relink' and every nested field including storyRange/sourceStory relationships. The description mostly restates these (all:true = refresh everything, relink object shape, missing-source reporting) without adding format or constraint detail the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Refreshes hotlinked modules / XRefs') and distinguishes two distinct operations — refreshing in place versus relinking to a new source file or name. The Hotlink Manager > Update analogy pins the user-facing concept, and an agent can tell this apart from get_hotlinks, place_hotlink and delete_hotlinks.

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 separates the two modes and their triggers: pass 'nodes' or all:true to refresh, pass 'relink' to repoint/rename/re-scope (with the note that relinked nodes are refreshed too). It also states the Teamwork precondition (reserve hotlink cache first). It never names the sibling tools (get_hotlinks for discovery, delete_hotlinks) explicitly, so routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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