sharing_recipients_update

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

The description indicates a write operation via 'Update' and the HTTP method 'PATCH', which implies partial updates. Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, so there is no contradiction. However, no additional behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, required permissions, side effects) are disclosed beyond the method.

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 concise: a single sentence that states the purpose and includes the API endpoint. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and broader context that would help an agent choose this tool over many similar sibling tools.

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?

Both parameters (name and body) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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') and resource ('Delta Sharing recipient'), and the included API endpoint ('PATCH ...') distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, delete, rotate_token. However, it does not elaborate on the scope of updates beyond what the schema provides.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sharing_recipients_create, sharing_recipients_delete, or sharing_recipients_rotate_token. The agent must infer usage context from sibling tool names alone.

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