create_share

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral load, yet it says nothing about access implications (is the share public? does it grant read access?), permission requirements, slug uniqueness, or what happens to the nested `parameters` object. Only the creation intent is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient for a list of target types. It errs toward terse rather than bloated, which is the lesser sin.

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 takes 5 parameters including a nested untyped object, has no annotations and no output schema; a one-line description is not enough for an agent to call it correctly. At minimum the meaning of `parameters` and of slug defaults should be stated.

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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only echoes the shareType enum values ('website, link, pixel, or board') while leaving entityId, name, slug, and the free-form `parameters` object completely unexplained. For a nested, additionalProperties object this is a serious gap.

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 (Create) and resource (share) plus the four entity kinds it can attach to, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling create_website_share or explain how it relates to update_share/get_share_by_id.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_website_share, when to use list_entity_shares or get_share beforehand, or what prerequisites (existing website/link/pixel/board id, permissions) are needed. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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