update_backlink

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Update an existing backlink' and lists fields, without disclosing side effects, error behavior, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what the 'update result' contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted Args list, a Returns line, and two practical examples. Every element adds utility and there is no wasted text.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the operation's scope, key parameters, and usage examples. It lacks some behavioral details (error handling, partial update behavior) but is sufficient for a straightforward update tool with optional fields.

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?

The schema provides zero description coverage, but the description's Args section adds meaningful semantics for each parameter (e.g., 'New title', 'New page URL', 'New status'). This compensates well, though the explanations are terse and example coverage is limited.

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 opens with 'Update an existing backlink', using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_backlink and delete_backlink. The title and description align, making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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 clearly implies use for modifying existing backlinks, and the optional field list supports partial updates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create_backlink for new entries, so it stops short of a 5.

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