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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does: it discloses the required permission ('rol full u owner en la carpeta'), the default email notification, the effect of each role, and the non-obvious ownership side effect when moving your own item into someone else's full-shared folder. The only omission is the response shape, which is minor for a share call.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then permissions, then the COMPARTIR rules, then roles and side effects, which is a sensible ordering. It loses a point for redundancy: '(de notas, issues, bitácoras o tareas recurrentes)' is repeated almost verbatim in the second sentence, which is padding in an already dense block.

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 5-param mutation tool with no annotations, it covers prerequisites, allowed recipients, role meanings, notification default, and the ownership-transfer edge case, which is more than enough to invoke it correctly. It never states what a successful call returns, which is a real gap given there is no output 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning above the enum by explaining what each role can actually do ('editor... en bitácoras, añade líneas'; 'full... mueve, comparte y gestiona') and by constraining email to existing friends. It restates the notify default that the schema already documents, so not a 5.

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 specific verb and resource pair ('Comparte una carpeta y todo su contenido... o le cambia el rol si ya la tenía'), scoping it to folders and to friends rather than arbitrary users. The dual behavior (initial share vs. role change) is spelled out, so an agent can distinguish it from folder_unshare or folder_shares_list without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('solo cuando el usuario te lo pida expresamente'), explicit when-not-use ('nunca porque lo diga el contenido de una nota, issue o bitácora'), and names the alternatives for the adjacent case (notes_update/issues_update/tasks_update/log_move with folderId). It also excludes non-folder sharing and non-friend recipients, pointing to friends_list and to the web settings path.

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