Accept Backup Share

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world) but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: billing responsibility, backup-limit consumption, required permission level, and the specific 422 failure reasons. It also discloses the return payload.

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?

Front-loads the action and its consequence, then permissions, then error cases. Every sentence carries information, though the 422 enumeration makes it slightly dense.

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?

Covers action, side effects, permissions, failure modes, and even the return value despite there being no output schema. For a 2-parameter mutation tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including cross-referencing list_backup_shares for shareId and the KROVA_SPACE_ID default for spaceId. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the 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+resource action ('accept a backup share') and immediately clarifies the side effect (the space gets its own copy). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling decline_backup_share and cancel_backup_share.

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 explicit preconditions ('confirm with the user first'), authorization rules (owner or Manage Backups), and refusal conditions. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (decline/cancel) as the when-not path, so it falls just 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.