create_shared_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it warns that password support is unavailable on gist backend, that expiry behavior is lazy on gist, and that selfhost enforces both. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the bare schema for a mutation tool that creates a public resource.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. First sentence states action and return value; second delivers the critical backend caveat. Information-dense and front-loaded.

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 tool is moderately complex (creation with backend-dependent behavior, 5 params, no output schema or annotations), and the description covers the most important caveats. However, it leaves the absent output schema unaddressed (no statement of what the public URL looks like or its format), and the backend selection mechanism is unclear, making the completeness partial for a tool with this level of behavioral nuance.

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 0%, so all 5 parameters (title, content, author, password, expires_in_hours) are undocumented in the schema itself. The description explains the semantics of password and expires_in_hours indirectly via backend differences, but says nothing about title, content, or author beyond their existence being obvious. It partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves key parameters unaddressed.

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?

Description states a clear verb+resource ('Create a shared Markdown doc') and notes it returns a public URL, distinguishing the creation action from siblings like update_shared_doc_title or revoke_shared_doc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from append_to_shared_doc or extend_shared_doc, though those are clearly post-creation operations.

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 meaningful backend-specific caveats (gist vs selfhost differences in password/expiry behavior) which inform when/whether to set password and expires_in_hours parameters. However, it doesn't give explicit when-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, and the backend distinction is somewhat opaque without more context on how to choose backend.

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