share_container

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the recipient experience (emailed a link that signs them in and opens the container) and the expiration semantics. It does not repeat the annotation values and adds genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Two focused sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the optional parameter behavior is described compactly in the second sentence.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, recipient behavior, and optional expiration. Since an output schema is present, return-value documentation is not needed here. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds some context about the expiration behavior, but this closely mirrors the existing schema description. No parameter is left unclear.

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 ('Share'), a resource ('a container'), a recipient type ('another BasicDeploy user'), and a method ('by email'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_container, get_container, and delete_container.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a user needs to grant another BasicDeploy user access to a container by email. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it confidently.

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