Manage Pane Sharing

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, consistent with actions that modify shares. Description adds context about token link independence but could elaborate on side effects like immediate propagation or notification on invite.

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 concise and informative, but the use of abbreviations like '/p' and '/s/<token>' may require prior knowledge. Structure is logical but could benefit from clearer separation of actions.

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?

With 6 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the main use cases. No output schema, but the description hints at return for list action. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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%, meaning each parameter already has a schema description. The description adds overall context and action purpose but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for individual parameters.

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 it's about identity sharing on a pane, enumerates all four actions (list, invite, set_access, revoke), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning layered on participant tokens and independent token links.

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 explains when each action is appropriate (e.g., invite for inviting by email, set_access for setting mode, revoke for removing a grant). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare against specific sibling tools.

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