File Share Add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Disclosing that this is a write operation is the one useful signal, but it omits everything else an agent needs: required permissions, uniqueness constraints on share_name, side effects, and what happens on conflict or failure.

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?

A single short phrase with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded and the write-operation tag is attached. It is efficient, though so terse that the minimalism borders on under-specification.

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?

This is a nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description says nothing about permissions, session/profile requirements, or any of the NAS connection parameters it takes, leaving the agent heavily reliant on the schema.

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 89%, so all nine parameters (path, share_name, permset, host, port, scheme, profile, acl_mode, sub) are already documented in the schema. The description adds zero parameter meaning on top of that, which lands at the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('创建文件共享' = create file share) plus the operation class ('写操作'). It is immediately distinguishable from read-side siblings like file_share_list and file_share_info, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with the delete counterpart file_share_del.

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 routing to alternatives. The '(写操作)' parenthetical hints that this is a mutating call but does not tell the agent when to pick it over file_share_del, file_acl_set, or the admin/list variants.

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