common-update-item-referrer-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool updates references or removes links, implying a mutation operation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects on linked items, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Updates all references'). It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the two operations (update vs. remove) for clarity. Overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error handling, and doesn't explain the return values or outcomes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely and effectively use the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'newTarget' and 'removeLink' in the context of the tool's purpose, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema descriptions offer. This 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 verb ('Updates all references') and resource ('the specified item'), specifying it operates on references/links to an item. It distinguishes from siblings like 'common-get-item-referrer-by-id' (which retrieves referrers) by focusing on updating rather than getting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'common-update-item-referrer-by-path' (a sibling tool), which likely performs the same function but uses a path instead of an ID.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions updating references to point to a new target or removing links, but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or compare with sibling tools like 'common-update-item-referrer-by-path' or other update/reference tools. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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