remote_share_update

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses the updatable fields but does not state whether the operation is destructive (e.g., replaces permissions), requires an existing share, or has any side effects. This is a notable omission for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It is appropriately sized and avoids redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits critical operational details like whether the share must already exist, how the update interacts with existing settings, and what the return value signifies. An agent would have to make assumptions to use this tool confidently.

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?

Because the input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'permissions' and 'expiration' mirrors the schema's descriptions without adding new syntax or semantic details.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('share settings'), with specific mention of permissions and expiration. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_shares_list (listing) and remote_session_share (sharing creation).

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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing share, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as remote_session_share or remote_shares_list. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, so the usage context is only implicit.

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