shares_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but it doesn't state whether it's a partial update, what happens to unspecified properties, whether special permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 focused sentence that conveys the core purpose with no fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

This tool has six parameters and is a mutation operation, yet the description is just one sentence. It lacks update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full update), prerequisites, or consequences. With no annotations or output schema, the description needs more context to be 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 provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter details (e.g., 'Custom link slug,' 'Expire at date (ISO 8601)'). The description adds no parameter meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline score 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 clearly states it updates a share link's properties, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shares_create, shares_revoke, shares_list, and shares_info, though it doesn't enumerate the exact properties being updated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for modifying existing shares, nor does it point to shares_create for new shares or shares_revoke for revoking access. The only cue is the verb 'update.'

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