update_share

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely doesn't. It doesn't state whether this is a partial update (only supplied fields changed), whether changes are reversible, what permissions or ownership are required, or what happens on failure — only the schema hints that '' removes password/expiry.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list and ID hint compressed into one line. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical is terse enough that the 'get the ID first' step reads as an aside rather than a call-setup instruction.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what can be changed and where the ID comes from, but omits update semantics (partial vs. full replace) and the authorization/error surface. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking it correctly on a partially populated 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including the enum values and the empty-string removal semantics. The description only mirrors the field list, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; 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 description uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a share') and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can tell it apart from create_share, delete_share and list_shares without opening the schema. It stops short of distinguishing itself explicitly from its siblings, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(ID from list_shares)' gives a concrete prerequisite path for obtaining the required share_id, which is genuinely useful. There is no guidance on when not to use it (e.g. use create_share for new shares, delete_share to revoke) or on permissions needed to modify a share.

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