filoo_update_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the old destination is kept in audit history and the short URL never changes, which is useful. However, it does not detail authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling for invalid codes. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, each adding value: first states action, second adds behavioral safety note, third gives use case. No filler words, front-loaded, and efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core behavior, safety, and use case. It could mention what happens if the code does not exist or error responses, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a relatively simple update tool.

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% with clear descriptions. The tool description adds context about the implications of changing destination (safe due to audit) and groups actions, but most parameter meaning is already in the schema. Thus it meets the baseline for high 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 resource (filoo short link) and the actions (change destination, edit label, disable/re-enable). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the short URL never changes and audit history keeps previous destination, implying it's for updates not creation or deletion.

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 provides a use case ('keeping a stable short URL while migrating the target') which guides when to use. It lacks explicit exclusions like 'do not use for new links; use create_link instead', but the context of siblings and the description itself imply the scope.

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