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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds meaningful plan and seat constraints. It does not describe response behavior or error cases, but it adds useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 action is front-loaded, and the single sentence carries purpose, recipient modes, role semantics, and prerequisites without filler. It is dense but every clause contributes relevant information.

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 the annotations, complete schema, and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential mutation scope and prerequisites. It leaves minor gaps around what happens if both email and team_id are supplied and what the call returns, but nothing critical for basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are already well documented. The description reinforces the email-versus-team_id recipient choice and role meanings, but does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: sharing a page with a person via email or a team via team_id, as viewer or editor, or changing an existing role. This is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools such as unshare_page and make_page_private by the action itself.

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 usage context and prerequisites: paid plan required, a free seat for new users, and the Team plan for team sharing. It does not explicitly state when to use unshare_page or make_page_private instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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