Update People Link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds cost and API-key requirements but does not discuss side effects, validation behavior, idempotency, or what happens to the existing edge. It is minimally transparent but does not contradict 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 a single compact sentence and includes cost and API-key information efficiently. The primary function is front-loaded and nothing appears redundant or verbose.

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 9 optional parameters, no required fields, low schema coverage, and a graph-edge update operation, the description is too sparse to safely invoke the tool. It does not state which identifiers are needed to target an edge, how parameters combine, or what the response represents. The output schema exists, but that does not solve parameter-selection ambiguity.

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 22%, but the description does not compensate. It lists 'type/context/source/confidence' though the schema does not include a 'context' parameter and uses 'relationship_type' instead. It also fails to explain how to identify the edge via person_ids or connection_id, leaving most of the 9 undocumented parameters unclear.

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 action ('Patch') and a specific resource ('an existing person↔person graph edge'), and lists the key fields affected: type/context/source/confidence. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete edge tools like link_people or unlink_people in the sibling set.

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 implies usage through 'Patch an existing...' and gives operational context via 'API key required' and cost, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as link_people, unlink_people, or get_people_links. There is no when-not guidance or alternative routing.

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