Create share

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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds nothing on top: it does not say whether shares are public links or user/group shares, what permissions mean, whether the operation is repeatable, or what the returned share looks like. For a mutation tool with a 0% documented schema, this is a substantial gap.

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?

One sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — no information is front-loaded because none exists.

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?

A write tool with three parameters, no output schema, no enum hints, and 0% schema coverage receives no compensating explanation. An agent cannot reliably choose share_type or permissions values from this definition.

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% and the description provides no parameter meaning at all. The critical parameters 'share_type' (integer, default 3) and 'permissions' (integer bitmask, default 1) are opaque without explanation, and 'path' is undocumented beyond its type.

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 'Create a share.' merely restates the tool name and title. It does not say what is being shared (file, folder, link), what kind of share results, or how it differs from siblings like nextcloud_create_directory or nextcloud_copy_resource.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as nextcloud_list_shares (to inspect existing shares) or nextcloud_delete_share. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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