files_share_file

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing shares are modified, if notifications are sent, or if ownership is required). It also does not mention reversibility or any permission requirements, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of 13 words, directly stating the action and target. It is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary information.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a link URL) or any behavioral consequences of sharing. This lack of detail leaves the agent without expectations for output or side effects.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaning by distinguishing the two modes: creating a shareable link (when email is omitted) and granting user access (when email is provided). This helps interpret how parameters interact.

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 uses specific verbs ('Create', 'grant') and identifies the resource ('shareable link', 'user access', 'file'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling file operations like copy, delete, download, and upload by focusing on sharing functionality.

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 implies usage: it is the tool to use when you need to share a file. There are no sibling tools for sharing, so the context is clear, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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