accept_share

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces and enriches this by explaining the idempotency in concrete terms and disclosing a real side effect — a previously declined/left group share is restored before acceptance because Nextcloud otherwise refuses. It does not cover authorization/permission requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose and idempotency behavior are front-loaded in the first two paragraphs, with Args/Returns kept tight. The docstring-style formatting adds a little overhead but every sentence contributes information; nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, how it differs from decline_share, where the id comes from, the federated distinction, and the idempotency guarantee. Returns are correctly left to the output schema.

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 carries the full burden, and it does: share_id is defined as the pending share's id from list_pending_shares along with the reason it may be a string (long federated ids exceed JSON number range), and federated is defined with its true/false condition and the separate numbering caveat.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Accept a share ... adding it to their files') and immediately scopes it to the current user. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like decline_share, list_pending_shares, and create_share without opening any schema.

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?

It names the upstream tool (list_pending_shares) as the source of the share_id and explains when to set federated=true, including the non-obvious fact that local and federated shares are numbered separately. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. permission needed to accept), so it falls just short of a 5.

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