sigma_accept_shared_template

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the context of 'pending' and the cross-organization source, implying a state change from pending to accepted. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but for a simple accept action this is acceptable.

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 a single sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is informative with no redundancy.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose. It could be more complete by indicating how to obtain the share_id, but this is a minor gap.

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 description does not explain 'share_id'. While the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory (an ID for the share), the description fails to specify where to find this ID or any format. The description could have compensated by referencing list_shared_templates or explaining the ID's source.

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 uses a specific verb 'accept' with a clear resource 'pending template share' and source 'another organization'. It distinguishes this from listing, creating, or saving templates 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?

The context is clear: use when you need to accept a pending template share from another organization. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the action itself is specific enough to infer usage.

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