share_document

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not mention authentication requirements, whether the share is permanent, if notifications are sent, or how existing permissions are affected. This leaves critical gaps for an agent.

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 extremely concise (one sentence). While front-loading is good, the brevity sacrifices critical detail. Every word earns its place, but the description is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and 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?

Given 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits context like default behavior, error conditions, or side effects. An agent would lack essential information for proper invocation.

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 40% (only 'doc' and 'account' have descriptions). The tool description does not explain the 'role', 'quiet', or 'email' parameters beyond the schema. For a tool with 5 parameters and low coverage, the description should add meaningful clarification but fails to do so.

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 tool's purpose: sharing a document via email. It includes a specific verb-phrase ('Share a document with an email address') that directly conveys the action and distinguishes this tool from other document operations among siblings.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, excluded scenarios, or comparison to other sharing methods. Sibling tools like 'connect_google' or 'gdoc_cli' might relate, but the description offers no context.

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