update_collective_share

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derived behavior: the edit-rights requirement, that an empty password string removes it while omitting it preserves it, and that page_id defaults to a value looked up from the token.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then a compact Args block, then a one-line return note; no filler. The return line is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, keeping it just under top marks.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain the response shape, and it correctly stays brief there. Auth requirement, parameter semantics, defaults, and the token's origin are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: every one of the 5 parameters is defined, including the two nullables' semantics (password: empty string removes, omit to keep; page_id: 0 for whole collective, null means look up from token) and the token's source.

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 states a specific update operation on a specific resource: toggling link editability and changing its password on a collective share. It is clearly distinguishable from list_collective_shares and delete_collective_share, which share the same noun. It stops short of 5 because it never names the closest alternative (e.g. the generic update_share) that an agent would need to rule out.

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?

"Needs edit rights in the collective" gives one real prerequisite, and the token's provenance is routed to list_collective_shares. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs update_share/share_collective guidance and no exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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