create_collective_share

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent with the write nature. It adds context that the share is public, that edit can be enabled later via update_share, and that a token is returned—useful behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 clear sentence with an additional URL-building hint. It is front-loaded and concise, with no wasted 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return token and how to build the final URL. It doesn't cover error cases or permissions, but for a simple two-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, it is reasonably complete.

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 50%; only password has a description. The tool description mentions the collective as the target but doesn't explicitly explain the collectiveId parameter or the password's role beyond what the schema already says. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation on collectiveId, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool's name and description.

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 tool creates a public share link for a Collective, with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from page-level shares and mentions the update_share sibling for enabling edit, making its purpose 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?

The description explains the sharing model (public, read-only by default, editable later) and how to construct the URL, which gives an agent context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_page_share or list_shares, but the scope is clear enough.

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