update_link

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only implies mutation via the word 'Update'. It doesn't say whether changes are partial, whether the slug must be unique, what permissions are needed, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

A single short sentence is not conciseness here — it is under-specification for a four-parameter mutation tool. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare verb and resource, and no sentence earns its place by adding 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An agent would have to guess the update semantics, which fields are writable, and what a successful response looks like.

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 0% and the description adds nothing about the four parameters (url, name, slug, linkId). An agent gets only type and length constraints from the schema, with no explanation of which fields are optional, how the slug is validated, or what linkId refers to.

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?

States a clear verb (Update) and resource (a tracked link), so an agent can tell it mutates an existing link rather than creating or deleting one. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like create_link, get_link, or delete_link beyond the verb, leaving field-level scope unclear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus create_link or get_link, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether the operation is a partial or full update. The agent must infer all of this from the tool name alone.

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