add_guest_to_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the operation type (share), scope (entire folder including lists/tasks), and return value (updated guest). However, it lacks detail on authorization, reversibility, or side effects like notifications.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence for the main action, plus two short sentences for return and plan constraint. No extraneous words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the primary functionality, return value, and a critical constraint (Enterprise plan). It lacks error handling or edge case information, but is adequate for correct selection and use.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by specifying that sharing the folder includes its lists/tasks, providing context for the folder_id parameter. This extra context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 verb 'share', the resource 'Folder (and its Lists/tasks)', and the action 'with a guest at a chosen permission level'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_guest_to_list' and 'add_guest_to_task' by emphasizing the entire folder scope.

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 use for folder sharing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_guest_to_list' or 'add_guest_to_task'. The 'Enterprise plan only' constraint is provided, but no guidance on 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.