linkding_update_bundle

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a confirm-gated dry-run by default, and PATCH vs PUT replacement semantics. It stops short of describing what the dry-run response looks like or what a failed confirm does.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the mode switch, then the safety gate. Nothing is padded.

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 tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the two things that matter most: how the write mode is chosen and that writes require confirm. Only error/failure behavior is left unstated.

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 91%, and the schema already documents confirm, replace, order, and the tag filters in detail. The description's mentions of replace and confirm restate rather than extend that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Update a bundle'), which cleanly separates it from linkding_create_bundle and linkding_delete_bundle. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation relies on the tool name itself.

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 concrete selection rules: PATCH by default, PUT when replace is true, and a dry-run when confirm is omitted. That is clear operational guidance, but it never names an alternative tool (e.g., linkding_get_bundle for inspection) or states when not to use it.

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