Edit Link In Bio Link

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

Annotations only say destructive/idempotent; the description goes further by disclosing the non-destructive soft-hide path (enabled: false), the plan gating on start_date/end_date/animation/protection, and the concrete FEATURE_NOT_IN_PLAN failure mode. That is exactly the error and side-effect context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler; the core mutation semantics are front-loaded and the plan restriction is correctly demoted to the end. The parenthetical id reference and paywall clause are packed but each earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important agent-facing facts: partial updates, soft-hide vs delete, and plan-gated failures. It could say more about dry_run usage or what a rejection looks like for other invalid inputs, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and each parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reiterates enabled:false and the paid-only restriction, adding the error code but no new syntax, defaults, or interaction details beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Change a Link in Bio link') and adds the key scoping detail that only fields sent are mutated, which separates it from a create/replace operation. It names get_link_in_bio as the id source but never names add_link_in_bio_link or delete_link_in_bio_link as the alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear operating context: partial-update semantics, use enabled:false to hide instead of deleting, and that paid-only fields will fail on the free on-domain plan. It stops short of stating when an agent should reach for this tool versus add_link_in_bio_link or delete_link_in_bio_link.

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