Update Folder Sharing

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Requires confirm=true' and permission notes add some value. But it repeats destructive behavior rather than explaining what specifically gets overwritten, whether untouched sharing flags reset, or reversibility. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description adds modest context only.

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 leads with a single short sentence, then piles on a permissions block and confirm requirement that could be more tightly structured. The permission fence block is verbose relative to the low-value behavioral information it conveys, and the ordering buries the mutation scope behind auth boilerplate.

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 nested-object mutation tool with 7 params and no output schema, the description covers permissions and confirm but does not explain the payload/sharing structure or the interaction between payload, sharing, and payload_file. It is minimally adequate given the rich schema, but an agent still has gaps about response shape and idempotency semantics.

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 86%, so the schema already documents account, confirm, payload, sharing, folder_id, sharing_id, and payload_file. The description adds no syntax or format hints beyond the schema (e.g., payload vs payload_file vs body flags precedence is only in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Updates a sharing on a folder'), which is adequate but thin. It does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling sharing tools (create_folder_sharing, delete_folder_sharing, get_folder_sharing) beyond the verb 'update'. An agent must read the name to know the distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no named alternatives among the large set of folder-sharing siblings. The permission and confirm requirements are prerequisites, not usage guidance. The agent is left to infer that this is the mutation path after get_folder_sharing.

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