share_collective

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the permission precondition, the folder-page side effect (file becomes <title>/Readme.md, page ID retained), the landing-page cascade, the editable-flag failure fallback to read-only, and that deleting the collective link preserves page links. This is exactly the mutation context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then Args/Returns. Dense but every sentence adds actionable information; only the Returns section is mildly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with a public-link side effect, the description covers preconditions, defaults, side effects, edge cases, and failure modes. With an output schema present, no further return-value elaboration is needed.

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 does so: collective_id (numeric ID), page_id (default 0 = whole collective), editable (default false, needs edit rights, ignored when members can't edit, fails to read-only), and password. Every parameter gains meaning not present in the bare 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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (public link to a collective / page), and immediately defines the scope distinction between collective-wide and single-page sharing. An agent can distinguish this from create_share, update_collective_share, and delete_collective_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?

Gives clear usage context: requires share rights in the collective, page_id=0 means the whole collective, and sharing the landing page shares everything. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling alternatives (e.g., create_share vs. update_collective_share vs. list_collective_shares) or say when not to use it.

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