Update snippet sharing settings

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing the write scope requirement, that expiry is counted from now, that null removes the password, that omitted fields are preserved, that a set password becomes visible in the conversation, and that the password is never returned. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before mutating sharing state.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then behavioral consequences, then the confirmation requirement, then the return contract. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, patch semantics, irreversible effects, the human-confirmation step, and what the response contains. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and interpret the result.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the load and mostly succeeds: it explains expiry semantics ('counted from now'), password null-removal, burn-after-read, and the omit-to-preserve rule for all five fields. It does not restate the enum values for visibility or expiry, but those are visible in the schema, so the remaining gap is small.

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 — changing who can open a live snippet — and enumerates the exact settings covered (visibility, expiry, password, burn after read). This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling update_snippet, which handles snippet content rather than sharing scope.

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 conditional guidance: confirm with the user before making a snippet public or setting a password, and states that omitted fields remain unchanged, which implies partial-update usage. It does not explicitly route the agent between this and update_snippet, but the scoping sentence makes the boundary reasonably clear.

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