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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does: it creates a per-user access grant, enables the shared user's agent to read files, and notes the approval requirement on first use. However, it does not mention what happens if a share already exists (e.g., overwrite or error), nor does it describe return values. These are minor gaps but not critical for basic invocation.

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 two short paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies scope and approval. It is efficient, front-loads the purpose, and includes a callout for approval behavior without extraneous content. The structure is clean and scannable.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, distinguishes it from related tools, and mentions the approval requirement. It does not specify return values (no output schema) or revoke behavior, but these are not essential for a correct call. Given the schema covers parameters thoroughly, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions for path, user_email, companyId, and permission. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that it shares files/folders and does not introduce new parameter-specific details. The schema's documentation carries the weight, so a 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 clearly states the action (share) and resource (knowledge file/folder), and explicitly distinguishes it from Play/Playbook tools by naming alternatives (create_playbook / list_playbooks). This provides an agent with precise targeting and avoids confusion with sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use when sharing reference docs — not a Play or Playbook' and points to the correct tools, while also clarifying it does not clone a Playbook onto another company. The write-tier approval note gives practical context for when approval might be required, ensuring correct invocation.

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