bosch_camera_friends_share

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden, disclosing that 'days' limits share duration and that omitting it gives unlimited sharing. It also mentions the return format. However, it omits error conditions or idempotency details, which are partially mitigated by the tool's simplicity.

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 concise: two sentences clearly state purpose, parameter behavior, and return value. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema only hinted at in the description, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. However, it lacks error handling details, prerequisites (e.g., friend must exist), and whether sharing is additive or replaces existing shares.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'days' parameter and its optionality, but provides no additional details for 'camera' or 'friend_id'. The other parameters are self-explanatory from context, but more explicit semantics would be beneficial given the low coverage.

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 'Share one camera with an existing friend,' specifying the verb, resource, and target audience. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like bosch_camera_friends_invite (inviting new friends) and bosch_camera_friends_unshare (removing sharing).

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 implies using this tool for sharing with an existing friend, contrasting with invite for new friends, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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