infomaniak_update_drive_share_link

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

Annotations already signal mutating but idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Two-phase commit with current share-link guard', which explains that updates are not a simple one-step operation and involves a guard. No contradiction with 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 a single sentence that starts with the core purpose, then provides the endpoint and a key behavioral trait. No redundant words or fluff.

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?

The description lacks details about the two-phase commit process: how to obtain the confirmation token, whether a prior get call is required, or what the 'current share-link guard' checks. While the output schema may provide return info, the agent could be underinformed for correct invocation in a multi-step workflow.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description's reference to 'Two-phase commit' adds meaning to the confirmation_token parameter (though it is optional) and the overall update flow, complementing the schema's basic field 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 clearly states the action: 'Update a kDrive share link' with the specific HTTP endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_drive_share_link and remove_drive_share_link.

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 'Update' verb implies usage for modifying existing share links, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance (e.g., 'use create_drive_share_link to create a new one'). The two-phase commit hint gives some context but not enough to direct choice among siblings.

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