Decline Backup Share

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (mutating, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds valuable behavioral facts beyond that: nothing is copied or billed, and it requires the same permission as accept_backup_share. It doesn't state the resulting state of the share, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the key side effect (no copy/billing), then permission. No waste; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not do (copy/bill), and permission requirements. The only minor gap is what happens to the share record after declining, but this is not essential 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 shareId and spaceId are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the complete schema (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?

Clear verb + resource ('Decline a backup') and scope clarification ('another space shared with this one') specify this is the recipient declining an incoming share. It names sibling accept_backup_share for permission context, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from 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?

Usage is implied by the action itself (declining a share you don't want), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus accept_backup_share or cancel_backup_share. The mention of accept_backup_share is for permission equivalence, not usage routing.

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