Modify a shared library

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by warning that it may notify recipients or change tenant data, and by making the operator opt-in requirement explicit. It does not contradict 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 compact and front-loaded: action, endpoint, body fields, then requirements and side effects. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 destructive mutation, the description covers the endpoint, auth/confirmation requirement, side effects, and provides a reference link. It does not describe the return value in detail, but there is no output schema and the reference link lessens that gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming the concrete body fields (id, name, script), which the generic recursive body schema alone does not reveal, and the reference link compensates for the generic body type.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Modify a shared library', backed by the exact endpoint and body fields. This differentiates it from the sibling create/get/delete shared-library tools.

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 intended use is implied by the verb and endpoint, and the description notes required prerequisites (operator write opt-in and confirm:true). However, it does not explicitly contrast this with creating or deleting a shared library, or explain when to prefer this over those alternatives.

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