share_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an authorization requirement ('owner only'), which is valuable. However, it does not explain what sharing actually does—e.g., whether it grants read/write access, notifies the friend, requires an existing friendship, or is reversible via unshare_project.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and then states the key constraint. There is no filler or redundant 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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description gives the core precondition but omits behavioral details such as the effect of sharing, prerequisites (e.g., friendship), and reversibility. An agent could call it correctly but might not fully anticipate the outcome.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds marginal context by implying projectId refers to an owned project and friendUserId to a friend, but it does not substantially extend the schema's meaning.

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 clearly states the action ('Share'), the resource ('a project'), and the recipient ('a friend'), and adds an important constraint ('owner only') that distinguishes this from any generic share or unshare operation. It is immediately identifiable against siblings like unshare_project without reading schemas.

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 'owner only' qualifier provides a clear precondition for when this tool may be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the action is distinctive enough that an agent can infer when sharing is appropriate.

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