Roo — update shortlink

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It provides useful behavioral context: 'Only fields you pass are sent' reveals PATCH-like partial update semantics and clarifies that unspecified fields remain untouched. It also uses scopes the tool away from add-ons and permanent flag behavior. It does not mention return format or error behavior, but core mutation semantics are clear.

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 concise and efficient: it states the operation, scope, partial-update behavior, and sibling-tool routing in a few short sentences. There is no verbosity or redundant repetition of schema information. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 three parameters, full schema coverage, and nested objects, the description plus schema covers the essential invocation aspects: what it updates, optionality via partial update, and which siblings to use for other concerns. There is no output schema, but a simple 'update' tool can reasonably omit return-value detail. The answer is slightly less complete because it does not describe what is returned or whether id is validated, though these are not critical for correct tool selection.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a general partial-update rule ('Only fields you pass are sent') that affects how all parameters operate, but it does not add per-parameter detail beyond the schema. The mention of 'destination URL and/or the custom-domain binding' reflects the schema's top-level properties without further elaboration.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update'), names the resource ('a shortlink'), and states the exact scope: 'Change the destination URL and/or the custom-domain binding.' It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly naming roo_set_* tools for add-ons and roo_make_permanent for permanent status.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'To change add-ons, use the roo_set_* tools; to make/unmake permanent, use roo_make_permanent.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool. The phrase 'Only fields you pass are sent' also conveys that this tool is for partial updates, not whole-object replacement.

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