Update link TTL

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, and the description adds the crucial detail that credentials are not rotated. However, it does not specify other side effects, idempotency, or error conditions, which are relevant given the tool modifies link state.

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?

A single, concise sentence that conveys the core function and a key differentiator without extraneous words. Ideal structure for quick understanding.

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 simple update operation, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and effect. No output schema is declared, and the description does not need to mention it. Sibling context is sufficiently covered by the explicit 'without rotating credentials' phrase.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions defining format (e.g., '48h, 7d') and meaning ('Label of the link'). The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for 100% coverage.

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 specific action (update) and resource (expiration TTL of a protected link), and explicitly distinguishes from credential rotation, aligning well with sibling tools like renew_link or protect_link.

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 phrase 'without rotating existing credentials' implies when to use this tool (for TTL changes only, not for credential updates), but does not explicitly list alternatives or conditions. It provides adequate context for selection among siblings.

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