Add, update, or remove group sharing access for a Hex project. Set permission levels like CAN_VIEW or CAN_EDIT.
Add, update, or remove group sharing access for a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remove | No | [{ group: { id } }] | |
| upsert | No | [{ group: { id }, access: 'CAN_EXPLORE'|'CAN_VIEW'|'CAN_EDIT'|'FULL_ACCESS' }] | |
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose whether removal is destructive or reversible, what permission level is required to edit sharing, or what happens to groups not listed in the call.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the operation and resource front-loaded. It is appropriately short but arguably too sparse given the tool's mutation semantics.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: required permissions, effects of partial payloads, and return behavior. The schema covers the access enum but not projectId.
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 67%, and the description adds nothing beyond the generic phrase 'group sharing access'. The remove vs. upsert split and the access-level enum are only visible in the schema, and projectId has no description anywhere.
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 specific verbs (add, update, remove) and a precise resource (group sharing access for a project), which cleanly separates it from the sibling sharing tools for collections, users, and workspace. However, it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts scope, so the differentiation relies on the tool name.
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 on when to choose this tool over hex-edit-project-sharing-users, hex-edit-project-sharing-collections, or hex-edit-project-sharing-workspace, and no prerequisites or ordering advice. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.