Edit a shared session

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description supplies the crucial detail those hints can't: which operations overwrite (list fields replace) versus append (add_next). It also discloses the admin escalation path. It stops short of describing what publish does to visibility or what a rejected update looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and permissions, then the non-obvious replace/append rule. Dense with no filler, though the parenthetical about admin rights interrupts the field enumeration slightly.

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 13-parameter mutation with a fully described schema and safety annotations, the description covers the ambiguous parts: scope of authority and overwrite behavior. The publish, sections, and decisions semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage and no output schema.

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 all 13 parameters are already documented, including the replace/append distinction. The description reinforces the add_next choice but adds no format, cardinality, or interaction detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'change' and resource 'a share you made' are concrete, and the description enumerates the editable surfaces (title, summary fields, audience, PR link, visibility). It doesn't name a sibling, but no other tool in the list is an edit on an existing share, so confusion risk is low.

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?

'a share you made (or any share, if you're an admin)' gives real authorization context, and the add_next note guides selection between two similar parameters. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use case and no pointer to an alternative tool for creating a share versus editing one, so routing is only implied.

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