Share project

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds useful context about the response wrapper and the specific error types raised for missing or invalid parameters. It does not explain permission requirements, whether re-sharing updates an existing share, or what group_access values mean.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the description is short despite the broad schema. The Args/Returns/Raises structure is easy to scan. The '**kwargs' line is somewhat misleading because the schema enumerates 126 named parameters, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 with 126 schema parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It identifies three key parameters and the response wrapper, but omits permission requirements, valid group_access values, the effect on existing shares, and why the remaining parameters are optional or irrelevant.

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 0% across 126 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It names project_id, group_id, and group_access as the critical parameters and notes they are required for success, but it does not explain their types, accepted values (e.g., valid group_access levels), or why the other 120-plus parameters exist. Calling the full set '**kwargs' is also inaccurate given the explicit 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Share a specific project with a group.' It is immediately clear what operation is performed. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from related siblings such as gitlab_delete_shared_project_link or group-membership tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as required project/group permissions. The only usage-related information is the list of parameters that trigger MissingParameterError, which is error behavior rather than selection guidance.

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