extend_shared_doc

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 a useful behavioral trait: expiry is enforced lazily on the gist backend (cleanup on next use), which is genuinely helpful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to the returned data, whether the operation is reversible, or any error/edge-case behavior (e.g., what if the doc is already expired). The lazy-enforcement note is a real value-add but coverage is partial.

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. The first states the operation clearly, and the second adds a practical usage hint plus a behavioral disclosure. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool (extending expiry) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately sufficient. It clarifies the hours semantic and the lazy cleanup behavior, but omits details an agent might need: max extension limits, whether expiry can only be extended (not reduced), and the return value format. Given only 2 simple params, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 the description must compensate, and it partially does. The description explains the 'hours' parameter semantics clearly (multiply days by 24), which is the most important semantic detail. However, it doesn't elaborate on 'doc_id_or_url' format (whether a full URL or just an ID is accepted), leaving some gap for a 0%-coverage 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Extend a doc expiry') and clearly states the action on a shared doc. The tool name 'extend_shared_doc' is reinforced by the description but the description adds the key detail that it extends by N hours, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, append, reset, update, revoke, and delete.

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 usage context: it extends expiry by hours with an explicit note on how to convert days to hours ('for N days multiply by 24 first'). It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this vs alternatives, but the sibling set makes task separation obvious (extend vs create/append/reset/update/revoke/delete are distinct operations).

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