create_share

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses the default share type and that public shares yield a link in the response. It omits what permissions are needed, what happens if a share already exists (idempotency), and what non-link shares return, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the default called out parenthetically. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

Eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations mean the description should be doing more: it explains the return only for public shares and says nothing about recipient-side effects (notification to share_with, note delivery) or failure modes. Adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation with this many optional params.

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 only echoes the link default and the link return value; it adds nothing about password/label being link-only, expire_date format, or permissions semantics that the schema does not already state.

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 (share) plus the resource (file or folder) and enumerates the three sharing modes with their default, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like update_share or delete_share without opening the schema.

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 this is the creation path for shares versus update_share/delete_share, but never names those alternatives or states when to choose this over them. An agent can infer intent but is given no explicit routing rule or prerequisite (e.g., file must exist, must be owner).

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