Update shared link

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

The annotations already flag this as a write operation with destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces that with 'Side effect: changes public link behavior immediately,' which adds useful context beyond the structured fields. It is still silent on permission and authorization requirements, rate limits, and which fields are left untouched, so it adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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 front-loads the purpose and the side-effect warning, then moves on to arguments and return value, which makes it easy to scan. The second sentence lightly repeats the first ('permissions or expiry' vs 'tighten/loosen access or set an expiration date'), and the Returns line duplicates the output schema, so a small amount of wording could be trimmed.

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 whose annotations already mark it as destructive and whose output schema describes the response, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it: purpose, side effect, and every parameter's meaning. The remaining gap is partial-update semantics (what null or omitted fields do) and any authorization prerequisites.

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 must document all six parameters, and it does: every argument is explained, including the meaning of allow_download, show_metadata and allow_upload. It also adds genuinely useful semantics that the schema lacks, such as an empty string clearing the description or removing the expiry. It stops short of stating that omitted or null fields leave the existing value unchanged, which is the key behavior for partial updates.

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 pair: 'Update a shared link's permissions or expiry.' That immediately separates it from the sibling create_shared_link, get_shared_link, delete_shared_link and list_shared_links tools, and the follow-up sentence narrows the scope to access control and expiration.

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?

'Use this to tighten/loosen access or set an expiration date' gives a clear picture of when to reach for this tool, but it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it (for example, pointing to delete_shared_link to revoke a link entirely). The context is clear, but there are no explicit exclusions.

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