Update a Plex user's sharing settings using their user ID to adjust library access and fix permission issues.
Update Share.
PUT /sharings/{userId}
Args: user_id: The unique identifier of the user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds the HTTP method and path but does not disclose what effect the update has, what fields change, or any side effects. It provides little value 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 compact and organized with a path and an Args section, avoiding fluff. However, 'Update Share.' is under-specified and the Args block largely repeats schema information rather than earning its place.
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 mutation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is still incomplete: it does not explain what a 'Share' is, what the update changes, or what the caller should expect. An agent would struggle to know the tool's real purpose among many similar update_* siblings.
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 0%, so the description needed to compensate, but it only restates that user_id is the user's identifier, which the schema already conveys via the property title and integer type. No additional meaning, format, or usage context is provided.
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 states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Share') and includes the HTTP path, so an agent can infer it updates a sharing record for a user. However, 'Share' is vague and it does not differentiate this from related sharing operations beyond the name itself.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_sharings_by_user_id or other update tools. The HTTP method and path are shown, but there is no context about prerequisites, intended workflow, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.