sharing_recipients_create

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

Beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=false) and the verb 'Create', the description reveals no behavioral traits such as idempotency, error conditions, side effects, or required authentication scopes. No additional context is provided to inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 very concise (one sentence plus the endpoint). It front-loads the core purpose. While it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, it avoids unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has multiple parameters and sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what a Delta Sharing recipient is, the different authentication types, or the purpose of parameters like sharing_code. Despite having an output schema, the description lacks sufficient context.

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 high (83%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no further meaning beyond the action itself. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter clarity.

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 ('Create') and the resource ('Delta Sharing recipient'), with the explicit HTTP POST endpoint. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sharing_recipients_get/list/update/delete by specifying the create operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sharing_providers_create, sharing_shares_create). It lacks prerequisites, context about required permissions, or conditions under which creation is appropriate.

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