share_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation, its two modes, and the return value, but omits prerequisites such as required permissions and whether existing shares are preserved or replaced. That makes it acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 compact: a one-sentence summary, a four-line Args list, and a returns line. Every line adds value and there is no filler.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description covers the action, all parameters, and the return value. It does not cover edge cases such as supplying both email and anyone, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly from this definition.

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 0%, and the Args list fully compensates by explaining every parameter: file_id, email, role, and anyone each receive a meaningful one-line description. This is exactly what the schema lacks.

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 opens with 'Share a file with users or make it public,' a specific verb-object-target statement. It clearly distinguishes this operation from sibling file tools (upload, download, delete) by naming the exact action and the two modes.

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 explicit alternative tools are mentioned, and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, the context is unmistakable: use this tool to grant access to a file, and no sibling tool covers file sharing.

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