update_share

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

Annotations only provide hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by revealing that editable is silently applied if omitted, and that passing an empty password removes an existing one. This adds meaningful context beyond 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 three sentences long, dense with actionable information, and front-loads the critical editable warning. It could be slightly more structured, but each sentence earns its place and the key warning is placed first.

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 update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential parameters, their behavior, and edge cases. It doesn't mention return values, but that's typically not critical for an update operation. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to call 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 80% (4 of 5 params described), so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the semantic nuance of editable (required, always applied), the conditional use of pageId, and the password removal convention. This enriches the meaning beyond the schema's brief 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 'Update an existing share link' with a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates from create/delete share tools by focusing on existing links. This unambiguously tells an agent what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains that editable is always applied and must be set explicitly, how to handle page vs Collective-wide shares via pageId, and how to remove a password. While it doesn't name alternatives like create_collective_share, the context makes the intended usage clear.

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