create_form_share

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the default permissions (['submit']) and the return value (JSON of the new share with its id). It does not fully disclose side effects like whether existing shares are replaced or whether link shares require special handling, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a concise Args list. Every line adds necessary information, and the most important usage detail (share_type codes) is front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the essential parameters, defaults, and return value, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not mention edge cases like whether permissions are validated against the form's existing settings or whether public link shares require a different permission set, but the output schema and annotations cover the rest. A small gap remains around error conditions or prerequisites.

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 of explaining parameters. It explains form_id, share_type (with numeric codes), share_with (with the omit-for-link rule), and permissions (with the allowed string values and default). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Share a form with a user, group, circle, or via public link.' It clearly enumerates the share types and distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_form_share and delete_form_share. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description explains the share_type values and when to omit share_with (for link shares), which gives clear context for using the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the sibling list and the detailed share_type semantics make the intended usage clear.

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