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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it explains what a shared project exposes to the recipient (media, chat history, renders) and what actions the recipient can take. It also notes owner-only restrictions. It aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The third sentence listing actions is slightly redundant given the schema enum, but it adds the default share behavior and the owner-only constraint without excessive length.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should ideally describe what the tool returns, especially for the 'list' action. It gives strong context about permissions and effects, but omits the response/result shape, leaving a notable 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 coverage is 67%, so the description partially compensates by clarifying that email identifies the teammate's Switch account and that action defaults to share. However, the project_id parameter is left without any additional semantic detail beyond the bare name.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Share one of your Switch Editor projects') and enumerates the three operations: share, unshare, and list. This clearly differentiates it from sibling editor tools like get_editor_project or delete_editor_project.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a user needs to share, stop sharing, or list sharing of a project by teammate email. It also adds a useful precondition, 'Only the owner can share or delete,' but does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative tool.

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