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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses atomicity, the bulk-limit refusal, and the CONFLICT-on-revision-mismatch behavior with expectedWorkspaceRevision. Combined with idempotentHint and destructiveHint, the agent knows this is a state-changing, re-runnable operation with defined failure modes.

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 the action, and each clause (scope, params, why, bulk limit, revision guard) carries information. It is dense and semicolon-heavy but not padded; a slightly cleaner structure would push it higher.

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 an output schema and full annotations present, the description covers mutation semantics, preconditions, and one failure mode. The main residual gap is what 'shared' actually means (visibility scope), but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: folder is id or slug-with-workspaceId, the workspace is the folder's own, why is required, and expectedWorkspaceRevision is an optional conflict guard. This exceeds what the schema fields state individually.

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 (make shared) and resource (a workspace folder plus all its current child artifacts), plus the atomic scope. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like artifact_share_policy or folder_update, which act on individual artifacts or folder metadata.

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?

Conveys the operational context well: 'all of its current child artifacts' implies only existing children are covered, and 'Refuses selections above the workspace bulk limit' flags a use precondition. It does not explicitly route to an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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