Update links

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. 'One undoable step' adds genuinely useful context that ties this to undo_last_change, but nothing is said about partial failures across the batch or what happens with invalid ids.

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 followed by the one behavioral fact worth knowing. No filler.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, but for a batch mutation (up to 500 items) the description says nothing about error handling or whether the update is all-or-nothing. Adequate but with a real gap.

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 description names kind and shape, matching two of the nested item fields, but omits the required id and the fact that 'updates' is an array capped at 500. The schema itself carries the enum and shape descriptions, so the description adds only marginal meaning.

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 gives a specific verb (Change) and resource (existing links) plus the two mutable attributes (kind, shape), which clearly separates it from create_links, delete_links, and list_links. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus create_links (new links) or delete_links (removal), nor any prerequisite such as needing existing link ids. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'existing links'.

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