Set page sharing

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds useful semantics not in the schema ("Restricted methods are OR alternatives"), but never explains the destructive scope — whether existing recipients/passwords are replaced wholesale — or the revision-conflict 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and no wasted words. Efficient, though the terseness leaves unexplained surface area in a very complex schema.

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 tool with an elaborate nested policy schema and zero property descriptions, the description covers the main branches (modes, OR semantics, revision) but omits expiresAt, password action semantics, and emailDomain behavior. No output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, keeping it marginally adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: the three modes map to policy.mode, the OR rule maps to the restricted methods object, and the revision hint maps to expectedRevision. However, it adds nothing about expiresAt, the password set/keep action, emailDomain, or the recipients cap, leaving much of the large oneOf schema uninterpreted.

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 action ("Choose... access") over a specific resource, enumerating the three access modes (owner-only/private, public, restricted). An agent can tell it is the mutating counterpart to get_page_sharing, though the resource (a page's sharing policy) is implied by the tool name rather than the description.

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?

"Use the revision returned by get_page_sharing" establishes a clear prerequisite and names the sibling that must be called first, giving real workflow context. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or how it relates to update_page / publish_page.

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