doc: clarify that fs.exists() may return false for existing symlink

Given that this API is problematic in any case, we should be precise
about its (perhaps surprising) behavior.

PR-URL: #53566
Reviewed-By: Jithil P Ponnan <jithil@outlook.com>
Reviewed-By: Moshe Atlow <moshe@atlow.co.il>
Reviewed-By: Yagiz Nizipli <yagiz.nizipli@sentry.io>
Reviewed-By: Marco Ippolito <marcoippolito54@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Luigi Pinca <luigipinca@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Ulises Gascón <ulisesgascongonzalez@gmail.com>

doc/api/fs.md

@@ -2736,7 +2736,7 @@ changes:
 * `callback` {Function}
   * `exists` {boolean}
 
-Test whether or not the given path exists by checking with the file system.
+Test whether or not the element at the given `path` exists by checking with the file system.
 Then call the `callback` argument with either true or false:
 
 ```mjs
@@ -2753,6 +2753,9 @@ parameter, optionally followed by other parameters. The `fs.exists()` callback
 has only one boolean parameter. This is one reason `fs.access()` is recommended
 instead of `fs.exists()`.
 
+If `path` is a symbolic link, it is followed. Thus, if `path` exists but points
+to a non-existent element, the callback will receive the value `false`.
+
 Using `fs.exists()` to check for the existence of a file before calling
 `fs.open()`, `fs.readFile()`, or `fs.writeFile()` is not recommended. Doing
 so introduces a race condition, since other processes may change the file's