Pause, resume or password-protect a share

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the immediate effect on open pages, the 404 behavior for missing shares, the unchanged token, reversibility of pause/password, and the required kits:write scope. This goes well beyond minimal expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core concept ('Change an existing client link WITHOUT reissuing it') and each subsequent sentence earns its place by explaining behavior, use cases, edge case, and auth. No redundant fluff.

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 description is thorough for a mutation tool: use cases, edge cases, auth, and behavioral nuances are all covered. The only gap is the lack of mention of the return value or success indication, which is notable given there is no output schema. Still, the description is highly complete for practical invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by explaining the real-world effect of 'enabled: false' (client sees nothing) and 'password'/'null' (set or remove protection), and how the token remains valid. This is more than schema descriptions alone but not substantially new.

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 clearly states the tool changes an existing client link without reissuing it, and the title specifies pause/resume/password-protect. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with creating a new share (share_brand_project) and by emphasizing that the token is untouched.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios: mid-revision work or accidental confidential sharing. It also names an alternative action (create with share_brand_project) when no share exists, giving clear decision guidance.

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