share_resource_endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether existing shares are replaced, what permissions are required, or whether an email/group must be pre-existing.

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 words with no filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is effectively no content to structure.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation with six parameters (three undescribed) and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot call this correctly from the description alone.

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 only 50% and the description provides zero parameter meaning. It does not clarify the critical target ambiguity (user_email vs group_id vs workspace_api_key_id) or how role and resource_type interact, so the missing half of the schema is left uncompensated.

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 'Share Workspace Resource' essentially restates the tool name and title rather than telling the agent what sharing means here (granting a role to a user or group on a specific resource type). It gives no differentiation from close siblings like unshare_resource_endpoint or add_sharing_voice.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance at all. The agent gets no signal about choosing this over unshare_resource_endpoint or other sharing-related siblings.

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