update_shareReplace the content of an existing share using its id and edit token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The share id (the URL path segment) | |
| content | Yes | The new markdown content | |
| filename | No | Optional new filename | |
| edit_token | Yes | Edit token returned when the share was created |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the destructive action ('Replace the content') and the auth requirement ('using its id and edit token'), covering the two most critical behavioral traits. However, it does not mention side effects on other fields like filename or whether the operation is reversible, which prevents a higher score.
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, front-loaded sentence with the action verb 'Replace' at the start. There is no wasted or redundant wording; every word contributes to the meaning. This is an exemplar of conciseness.
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?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must compensate for the lack of structure. It clearly explains the core action and auth requirement, but leaves ambiguity about the optional filename behavior (e.g., whether filename changes require content replacement) and does not describe the return value or potential errors. This is adequate for a simple update tool but not fully complete.
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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. It reinforces the roles of id and edit_token for identifying the share, but does not clarify any additional semantics (e.g., how filename interacts with content replacement). The schema already carries the parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Replace' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the content of an existing share,' which distinguishes it from the sibling tools share_markdown (create) and delete_share (delete). The mention of 'existing share' reinforces that this is an update operation, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 clear context that this tool is for modifying an existing share, not for creating or deleting shares. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidelines. The sibling tool names are inferable but not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct action: sharing creates, update_share modifies, delete_share removes. No overlap in purpose, and the edit token requirement clearly separates operations.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: share_markdown, update_share, delete_share. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With only three tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose: sharing and managing markdown shares. Each tool is essential and the count is appropriate.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of a share: create (share_markdown), update (update_share), and delete (delete_share). Reading is handled via the public URL, so no additional tool is needed.