Create Share

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses the read-only nature ('they can never write here'), the coordination workflow, and a safety caveat about scope. It does not cover revocation, expiry, or what happens on re-share of an existing label.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The agent-to-agent paragraph is longer but earns its place as non-obvious usage context; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage across nine params, the description need not explain return values or argument formats. It supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the read-only sharing semantics and recipient access model. Revocation/lifecycle behavior remains unstated but is largely a delete_share concern.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters with types, formats, and mutual exclusions. The description's only added semantic is that recipients read via this user's fulcra_userid, which does not map tightly onto the with_user_ids parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Share files or data types from this account with other Fulcra users') plus the read-only scope, which distinguishes it from siblings like write_file, delete_share, and list_shares. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 context: recipients read by passing this user's fulcra_userid, the agent-to-agent folder-sharing pattern is spelled out, and it warns 'Only share what the user asked to share.' It does not name alternative tools or when NOT to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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