share_google_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action and target, but omits any details about access permission handling, potential overwriting of existing permissions, notification side effects, or required authentication scopes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, tight sentence of 11 words. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose, and it is front-loaded with the action. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a moderate complexity with three parameters, but the schema fully documents them and an output schema exists (per context signals). The description covers the primary purpose but leaves gaps about behavioral nuances, use-case boundaries, and permission implications. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little context by clarifying the email parameter ('one or more email addresses') and the doc_id ('existing Google Doc'), but it does not add substantive meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (share), the resource (existing Google Doc), and the target (one or more email addresses). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_google_doc and update_google_doc by specifying 'existing' and focusing on sharing rather than creation or modification.

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 phrase 'existing Google Doc' implies that this tool is for documents already created, giving some usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is implied rather than clearly directed.

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