box_update_shared_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' and does not mention that this mutates the link, whether an existing shared link is required, whether omitted fields are reset, required permissions, or what the result looks like.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is concise, though extremely terse and not exceptionally informative for a mutating tool with seven parameters.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description is thin for a mutating operation. It omits behavioral context such as side effects, requirements for existing links, and how omitted parameters behave, leaving an agent to rely entirely on the schema.

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?

The input schema already describes all 7 parameters with descriptions and enums, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a concrete verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('shared link settings'), and the applicable scope ('file or folder'), so an agent can identify the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like box_remove_shared_link by the 'update' action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus box_share_content, box_remove_shared_link, or box_update_collaborators. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are mentioned; usage is only implied by the verb and resource.

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