share_vault

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely states the action without explaining side effects, whether an invitation is sent, how existing members are affected, or that the write operation requires confirmation. The 'confirm' parameter exists in the schema but is not echoed in the description.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it may be too terse to fully serve the agent's selection and invocation needs.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain how parameters relate (e.g., whether shareId and vaultName are alternatives), why confirm is required, or what happens as a result of sharing. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema to understand the operation, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is appropriate given the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Share a vault with a user' clearly identifies a specific verb, resource, and recipient. It is distinct enough from siblings like transfer_vault and share_item, but it does not explicitly differentiate from them by name or mention that it creates an invitation or grants access.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transfer_vault, accept_invite, or share_item. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name.

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