Update a per-recipient link

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable context by explaining that revoking affects only the specified recipient ('leaving everyone else's alone') and is reversible ('it can be undone'). This goes beyond the boolean flags and clarifies the scope and side effects.

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 three sentences long, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: listing operations, explaining the revoke behavior, and stating the Pro plan requirement. It is concise with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the 7-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description adequately covers the core operations and a key behavioral caveat (reversibility and per-recipient scoping). It omits edge-case details such as invalid input handling, but the schema and annotations fill these gaps, making it sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already described in detail. The description's high-level actions (rename, revoke, restore, change permissions) loosely map to parameters like label, revoked, pageFrom, and allowDownload, but it does not add syntax or interaction details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 opens with precise verbs—'Rename, revoke or restore a per-recipient link, or change what that one recipient may do'—clearly identifying the resource and its update scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_variant and create_variants, which handle deletion and creation respectively.

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 implies the use case through the listed actions and notes the Pro plan prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No comparisons or exclusions are given, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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