box_share_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral implications. It only states the action and omits side effects such as email notifications, access changes, reversibility, or behavior when both links and collaborators are requested. It is a minimal mutation statement without meaningful behavioral depth.

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 direct sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is efficient but sacrifices behavioral and parameter detail.

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 no annotations, no output schema, nested objects, and zero schema description coverage, this one-phrase description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It leaves unclear how shareMethod drives the request structure, which fields are needed, and what outcome to expect.

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 compensate. It loosely maps 'shared links' to linkSettings and 'collaborators' to the collaborators array, but it does not explain shareMethod values, parameter relationships, required combinations, or how items are identified.

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 identifies specific verbs ('create', 'add') and resources ('shared links', 'collaborators', 'files or folders'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from the update/remove sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusionary routing to alternatives like box_update_shared_link or box_update_collaborators. The create/add wording implies an initial-sharing use case, but that is left entirely to inference.

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