share_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that recipients receive an email notification and can access the file, but does not detail side effects like permission requirements, reversibility, logging, or error handling. Some behavioral context is given but incomplete.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the primary purpose in the first sentence. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief. It covers the basic purpose and outcome but lacks details on return values, error cases, permissions, or preconditions. 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that sharing involves email notifications, but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., role options, canShare effect). Minimal added value.

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 clearly states the tool shares a file with other users by email, specifying the action, resource (file), and distribution method (email). It differentiates from sibling tools like share_folder by focusing on files, and includes the outcome of email notification and access via ZeroDrive account.

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 implies usage for email-based sharing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like share_folder or other methods. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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