update_share

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: partial-update semantics, the special meaning of empty strings to clear fields, and type-specific constraints (password for link/email shares, public_upload for link shares). It does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear summary line, a partial-update note, a labeled Args block, and a Returns line. It is somewhat long due to the 8 parameters, but every line earns its place. The most important behavioral note (only provided parameters are changed) is front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, the description is quite complete: it covers all parameters, return type, and key behavioral semantics. It could add a note about error conditions or required permissions, but the output schema exists and the annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. The gaps are minor.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: each parameter gets a type, a meaning, and often a special value convention (e.g., pass "" to remove). It also explains the permission bit flags, which the schema does not. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update properties of an existing share.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_share and delete_share, and the parameter list enumerates exactly which properties are updatable. The title is null, but the description fully compensates.

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 states that only provided parameters are changed and omitted ones keep their current value, which is essential usage guidance for a partial-update tool. It also notes share-type restrictions for password and public_upload. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_share or delete_share, though the sibling context makes that fairly obvious.

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