create_share

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

There are no annotations, so this description is the only source of behavioral context. 'Transfer assets / a group to a user' implies a mutation but does not disclose whether assets change ownership, what permissions are needed, or if the action is reversible. The reference to external docs avoids describing the actual behavior of the operation.

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 only one sentence plus a docs reference, which is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence captures the purpose efficiently, though the second sentence is somewhat vague but not wasteful.

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 create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to address any behavioral details, usage context, or parameter semantics, leaving the agent to rely on external documentation. Sibling tools like create_share_link and create_asset_group_invite introduce ambiguity that is not resolved.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It implies that asset_ids or asset_group_id select the items to transfer, but does not define email, message, expires_at, or how asset_ids and asset_group_id interact. The statement about body fields supported by the org is a pointer to documentation rather than parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with resource 'a share' and clarifies it means transferring assets or an asset group to a user. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_share_link (which likely creates a link) and create_asset_group_invite (which invites to a group). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 given for when to use this tool instead of create_share_link or create_asset_group_invite. The sentence about Mediagraph docs addresses supported body fields, not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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