put_netshare_samba

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Update the SambaConfig' and lists error codes. Missing details on update semantics (partial vs full replace), authorization needs, side effects, or behavior beyond validation errors.

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 plus error code list; very concise. However, lacks structure: error codes are dumped without context. Could be better organized to include purpose and usage context.

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?

Tool has 6 optional parameters and an output schema, yet description is extremely brief. It does not explain the output, error handling beyond codes, or the nature of the update. Incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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 100% with detailed descriptions (e.g., 'is file sharing enabled'). The description adds no extra parameter-specific information, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update the SambaConfig', clearly indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_netshare_samba' and 'put_netshare_afp' by naming, though it does not elaborate on specific settings. Still specific enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The error codes are listed but not explained in context of usage. Siblings exist (e.g., put_netshare_afp) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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