shareCollection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Share' implies a write operation with permission changes, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific user permissions, affects existing shares, or returns confirmation data. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('share') and resource ('collection'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent to guess about success responses or side effects. For a permission-changing tool, this creates significant uncertainty in usage.

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 the schema fully documents parameters (id, level, emails). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters exist for sharing. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., 'emails' is optional, 'level' choices affect access) or provide usage examples, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('share') and resource ('a collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createCollection' or 'mergeCollections' by focusing on permission management rather than creation or merging. However, it doesn't specify what 'share' entails beyond the basic concept.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a collection ID), exclusions (e.g., not for sharing bookmarks directly), or related tools like 'updateCollection' that might handle permissions differently. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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