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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: no email notification, named-only access (no anonymous link), returns a link, and asks for user confirmation before sharing. It doesn't mention whether existing permissions are replaced or modified, which could be relevant, but the major behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then a caution. No wasted words, all information relevant.

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 no output schema, the description mentions 'get back the link' which hints at the return. It covers the key context: named-only, no email, confirmation requirement. It doesn't specify what happens if the person already has access or if the item is a folder vs file, but these are minor given the tool's clarity. Overall, quite complete for a sharing tool.

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 80% (4 of 5 params have descriptions). The description doesn't add significant new meaning to parameters beyond the schema; it reinforces the email param and mentions returning a link. Since coverage is high, 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?

States explicitly: 'Give a named person access to a file or folder by their email address, and get back the link to pass on.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like share_gdrive_item (different service) and unshare_onedrive_item (reverse action). Also clarifies it's only for named people, not link sharing.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Only named people — there is no "anyone with the link" option' and 'The person is NOT emailed: send them the link yourself if they should know.' This tells an agent when NOT to use it (when anonymous access or email notification is desired) and that user confirmation is required. Clear guidance for tool selection.

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