share_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that send_notification defaults to false and therefore no email reaches the recipient, which counters a natural expectation. It does not state permission requirements, whether an existing grant is overwritten, or reversibility.

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 core action, then role semantics, then the notification caveat. No padding, though the 'Missing in the official connector' clause is of questionable value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage, the description covers roles and the notification default but omits authorization needs, overwrite/merge behavior, and error conditions. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates meaningfully by glossing the role enum (reader=view, commenter, writer=edit, fileOrganizer, organizer, owner) and explaining the send_notification default behavior. file_id, email and message remain undocumented beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Share a file or folder with someone'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_permissions and remove_permission. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling handles permission removal or listing, so it isn't a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_permissions/remove_permission, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. caller must already have sharing rights). The 'Missing in the official connector' note is meta-commentary about origin, not usage guidance.

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