Update or deactivate a payment link

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's contribution is explaining that `active: false` specifically means the link stops accepting payments. It does not say whether deactivation is reversible, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with zero filler. The title and first sentence duplicate each other slightly, which is the only waste.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin: it omits partial-update semantics, reversibility of deactivation, and any error conditions such as an unknown or already-inactive link.

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 25% (just the `id` field is documented), so the description must compensate and it partially does by mapping `active: false` to deactivation and naming the rename/description use cases. However, it gives no format guidance for `name` or `description`, and never states the update is partial/merge-style, leaving a real gap for the three bare properties.

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 verb and resource ('Update or deactivate a payment link') and enumerates the fields that can change (name, description, active). It distinguishes itself from create_payment_link and get_payment_link by naming only mutation operations, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns to call it when it wants to rename, re-describe, or stop a link from accepting payments. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over recreating a link, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions or the link's current state.

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